We are just a group of retired spooks that discuss things that you’ll not find anywhere else. It makes us unique. Take a look around. Learn a thing or two.
Today, the American Navy has confronted and accepted the fierce reality that China has the “upper hand” in the South China Sea.
That China has established strong defensive positioning and capabilities.
And that America has spent it’s time and efforts in other areas and towards other objectives. Now it must face the fact that it’s military has some glaring holes in it’s offensive capabilities. And it is reluctantly admitting to this situation.
Up until just a few months ago the entire American military and the funding and development mechanism for it just ridiculed the idea that either China or Russia had any technology that could match that of the United States.
Their argument has been that America is superior in every way, that the American military is battle tested, and fully funded and staffed with fine well-trained American soldiers, and that the technologies involved are more than a match for anything that could possibly be fielded by either China or Russia.
America is a nation of Rambo’s they argue. America has a warrior culture. America is a policeman for freedom™ and democracy™.
Not true.
However, when you meet a moron, you just smile, and continue on your way…
Is it okay to criticize CCP on WeChat? I’m going to China next year and worried about if this will affect my study abroad.
As a foreigner living in China, I have a few thoughts:
First, welcome to China! You’ll probably hear that a lot, mostly from Chinese people. I’ve lived here for over seven years, and I still get it. It can be annoying, but the vast majority of Chinese people love their country and are both happy and proud to share it with you.
Second, don’t confuse the CPC (that’s the correct abbreviation for the Communist Party of China) and the government of the PRC (the People’s Republic of China). They are not one-and-the-same. The vast majority of CPC members joined in order to make life better for other people. A friend of mine, who lives in the city that I used to live in, is a CPC member, and he volunteered to help with health checks at the highway entrance into the city (that is not his job, mind you. He volunteers. His actual job is that he runs a little shop that sells alcohol and cigars). Along similar lines, there was a viral video that came out about a year ago of a group of people driving in the countryside of Xinjiang. Their car went off the road, and a herdsman and his friend helped push them back onto the road. When the people offered him some money, he refused. His Mandarin Chinese wasn’t very good, so to show why he refused, he opened his coat to reveal the CPC pin on his lapel, and everyone understood completely:
https://youtu.be/bBinzzWQ6hs
Third, there’s not much to complain about in China. Sure, it’s annoying when there are new blockages for VPNs, but it doesn’t usually last all that long, and it can be annoying to do nucleic acid tests for Covid so often (as of writing this, my city does them every other day. Just about a week ago, we were doing them every single day, but there was an outbreak a couple of weeks ago – thankfully, due to these measures, the outbreak resulted in only about 10 cases in a city of over one million people). Outside of those, and the annual health check required for the visa renewal (no food or drink beforehand means that I have to wake up early and can’t drink any coffee), there’s really nothing that I can think of to complain about.
Fourth, so long as you don’t break the law by doing something stupid, like taking drugs, there won’t be any problems.
The Ugly American
When will the West respect China?
Within ten years. I went on a visit to China last year. Most of what we are fed in the press about China in the UK is negative: human rights, Tienanmen Square, blocked Google, smog, Hong Kong democracy, dictatorship etc.
I arrived in Kunming, Yunnan expecting to find the sense of oppression I had experienced in eastern Europe in the late 1970s and to be struggling with pollution etc.
I walked around with my mouth open! No pollution, clean streets, no beggars/homeless, wide variety of independent shops and food outlets, moderate traffic, !!electric motorcycles!!, well run places to stay, delicious food (so much better than UK ‘Chinese takeaway), very little sexualisation of women (either clothes or depiction in adverts), everyone with a 15cm smartphone, great internet access, people hiring bikes with an app on their phone.
Where shall I stop?
Once the truth starts to filter to the general population, respect will grow.
Of course there will be resistance. We in the West cannot bear the idea that our version of ‘democracy’ is not the best for everyone. It will take us a while to understand the role of the Chinese Communist party and the benefits of a system like that.
Addition 1: We are told that China suppresses religion – but in Dali there is a three-sources temple in the town – Confucius, Tao, Buddha – and the Confucius Centre in the centre has been completely rebuilt in the last few years. On the outskirts there is the Guan Yin temple. Ordinary folk out shopping come in all the time to say a prayer etc. I sensed their genuinely spiritual experience.
Addition 2: I also realised why China was advancing so fast – they work steadily! Wherever I looked people seemed to be just ‘getting on with it’. I sensed this was a deep habit, centuries old in the population.
Addition 3: Dancing in the park! Amazing. Just a group of people with a music-system doing musical Tai Chi. Another small group playing instruments in the park. So unselfconscious. Just enjoying themselves.
Update 2020: My prediction is probably now wrong. A dark cloud has descended over China/West relations. There is a growing China-phobia in the UK. People with no knowledge of China, who, when I wrote this post 2 years ago, would have little to say about China, now are experts making cold-war-like statements.
I responded recently to a very good article by a Harvard professor warning against a new cold-war with China. I was immediately vilified by comment writers (as was the author), accusing me of being a Chinese troll, or perhaps the author of the article. Very disturbing.
The main driving force for this is that western commentators blame China for their COVID19 deaths because of the delay in reporting in Dec 2019. The very slow and inadequate responses by the UK, US and now Brazil and all the consequent deaths are blamed in China, not on the inadequate response.
China is not perfect, but the inaccurate picture I reported 2 years ago has been transformed into something more dangerous.
Tortang Giniling (Filipino Beef Omelette)
Tortang Giniling is a Filipino ground beef omelette. It is unique in that the omelette is made more like a fritter and is filled with lots of beef and veggies. It is a delicious recipe for breakfast or for a light lunch or snack.
x
Filipino Ground Beef Omelette
Tortang giniling is a simple Filipino omelette made with ground beef.
This omelette isn’t like your traditional omelette where the egg batter is cooked and folded around cheese and other fillings.
Rather, this Filipino omelette is made in more of a fritter style. The beef and vegetables for the filling are first sauteed and then transfered to a bowl. Once they have cooled slightly, they are mixed with beaten eggs.
This batter is then ladled onto your hot skillet in the same way you would ladle pancake batter onto a hot griddle, making small, roughly 3 inch, round omelette fritters.
x
What does “Tortang Giniling” mean?
“Torta” is a word that you find variations of used in many cultures (Spanish, for example, and a variant in the French “tarte”). It is used to describe a number of dishes, but it often refers to a flat cake, of sorts.
In the Philippines, a “torta” refers to an egg fritter, or omelette.
“Giniling” is the Tagalog (one of the major languages spoken in the Philipines) word for “ground meat”.
Tips for making Tortang Giniling
With all the vegetables and meat right inside this omelette, flipping it can get tricky if you use too large of a pan and let your batter spread over too large of an area.
That’s why we like to make these into pancake-sized omelettes (or fritters). (Roughly 3 inches in diameter.) This will make flipping these ground beef omelettes easier.
To those of us in the States, this sounds like a bit of an unusual breakfast, but if you like savory breakfast dishes, this is definitely worth a try.
If savory breakfasts aren’t your thing, this makes for a great lunch or snack as well!
Ingredients
1 Tbsp oil
1 onion, diced
3 cloves garlic, minced
1 tomato, diced
1 lb ground beef
½ tsp salt
¼ tsp ground black pepper
½ c peas
5 eggs, lightly beaten
Vegetable or canola oil, for frying
Instructions
In a large skillet, heat oil over medium high heat. Add the onion and garlic and saute until softened, 2-3 minutes.
Add the diced tomato to the skillet and continue cooking for 5 minutes, letting the tomatoes release their juices.
Add the ground beef to the vegetables and saute until browned, 5-7 minutes.
Add the salt and pepper. Mix well. Taste the mixture and adjust the salt and pepper as desired.
Transfer the mixture to a medium bowl. Add the peas and let the mixture cool slightly.
Once the meat mixture has cooled, add the beaten eggs and mix well.
Wipe out the skillet you used for the meat and heat a little oil in it, over medium heat. Reduce the heat to medium low and spoon ¼ c of the egg and beef mixture into the skillet, flatten the mixture and shape it roughly into a 3-4 inch patty. (Depending on the size of your skillet, you may be able to cook more than one omelette at a time. Just be careful not to overcrowd the pan, or flipping the omelettes will be difficult.)
Cook the omelette for 2-3 minutes on the first side. (If your omelettes cook faster than this, your pan is too hot. Reduce the heat for the next batch.)
Flip the omelette and cook for an additional 1-2 minutes on the second side, until golden.
Transfer the omelette to a paper towel-lined plate and continue with the remaining batter. (Keeping the plate with the cooked omelettes in a very low oven will keep them warm until all are made.)
Black Hawk Down: Hostile streets
Military capabilities
The following article is part of a series of articles that argues that no military technology is going to negate a MAD-level nuclear response to American military action. MAD is an anachronism for Mutually Assured Destruction. No matter what the American leadership might want to believe, there is no such things as “reasonable” or “safe” nuclear weapons.
Use of any type of weapons against a major power will result in a very dangerous response.
Mutually assured destruction is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two or more opposing sides would cause the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender.
It is based on the theory of deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.
-Wikipedia
And this needs to be said.
For President Joe Biden and the entire neocon cabal strongly believe that they can unleash military action against either, or both Russia and China and NOT trigger a MAD level response.
"Does being “ahead” have any practical meaning, however? Is there a genuine contest for advantage that translates into their gaining an upper hand in some sense or other? The clear answer is “NO!” It is strategically meaningless. Why? Because it in no way alters the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction."
This article is titled “Russia’s Lead Over the US in Hypersonic Weapons Gives them No Practical Strategic Advantage in Geopolitics” by Michael Brenner and found on Zerohedge. It was written Tue, Jan 21, 2020 and republished with very little editing. You can read the Comments on the site directly if that is your desire. I normally do not post “doom porn” from Zerohedge, but it does have good and meaty articles from time to time.
This is one of them. Enjoy.
Russia’s Lead Over the US in Hypersonic Weapons Gives them No Practical Strategic Advantage in Geopolitics
Deployment of Russia’s hyper-sonic missiles is causing heartburn in the West. Media headline the news as a dramatic breakthrough on a par with the first Sputnik. “Experts” are rushed into play like those self-styled pundits pronouncing when the initial exit polls appear on Election Day. Pentagon officials assure us that the United States is at the top of the nuclear game and able to respond to (if not exactly match) anything that the Russians can put out there.
Ninety eight percent of all this instant reaction is “fog-horning.” It simply signals that something big and important is out there even though we don’t have a clear picture of its actual shape or dimensions — or its significance. That’s normal. What counts is moving swiftly to the “searchlight” stage of close observation and hard thinking. Whether analysts, official or otherwise, get there is problematic. We’re out of practice when it comes to serious strategic appraisal. After all, we’ve been flailing about in Afghanistan for almost two decades with no realistic aim or evaluation of the chances of achieving it by whatever means at whatever cost. The disorientation on Syria is even greater. There, we haven’t as much as figured out who are the “bad guys” and who are the “good guys” — except for ISIS.
If you can’t differentiate friend from foe for want of rigorous strategic analysis, your actions are predictably erratic — little more than the expression of mental fibrillations. The same can be said for the rest of the Missile East.
The Washington consensus is sure about one thing: Russia is a mortal enemy. We sanction the Russians, we denounce the Russia, we coerce our European partners into ostracizing them, we conjure frightful images of Vladimir Putin while ignoring just about everything he says (as if they were Hitlerian rants). Still, no one seems able to provide a crisp formulation of what the Russian threat is — other than getting in our way in places where we demand to have full sway: Syria, Libya, Iran, Turkey, Ukraine, Georgia.
Of course, we also accuse them of working relentlessly to undermine American democracy. Yet, that remains debatable as does everything that bears the dubious label of “Washington consensus.” Anyway, whatever minuscule role the Kremlin might have in the accelerated unravelling of the American Republic, it barely registers amidst the hammer blows struck by the craziness of President Donald Trump, his enablers and a largely compromised, abject resistance.
Cold War Dread
Understandably, it is not that easy to overlook nuclear weapons. It wasn’t that long ago that many of us were tormented by the dread of a prospective Armageddon, when the Cold War carried manifest dangers, when the air was thick with hostility and menace.
In October 1962, Americans were terrified over Soviet missiles in Cuba, as this newspaper map showing distances between Cuba and major North American cities demonstrates.
Those acute fears gradually faded over the 40 years of the nuclearized Cold War. We came to live with the Bomb — if not to love it. Subsequently, concerns shifted to the risks associated with nuclear weapons proliferation among less stable states in more fraught places.
The reasons for this sedating were three-fold.
Above all was the “balance of terror.’’ Leaders among the major nuclear powers absorbed the fundamental truth that not only was the notion of “winning” a nuclear war an oxymoron — but also that any use of nuclear weapons inexorably would escalate into acts of collective suicide. The survivors would envy the dead — as Nikita Khrushchev one said. That conviction became formalized in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Second, it was reified by a number of treaties and understandings: START I,II (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty), the Anti-BallisticMissile Treaty (ABMT), the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, introduction of the Hot Line between the White House and the Kremlin, and the several arms reduction accords signed when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in Moscow. Their collective purpose was to ensure that no conceivable advantage might be gained that would jeopardize — however slightly — the balance of nuclear power, i.e. the assurance that any resort to nuclear weapons was tantamount to the death of civilization.
Finally, a number of technological developments reinforced Mutual Assured Destruction: the deployment of submarine launched ballistic missiles — SLBM (immune to location and possible destruction in a “first strike” — thereby, guaranteeing a retaliatory capability); improved controls that reduced the chances of an “accidental” or miscalculated launch; and the moratorium in placing ballistic missile defenses around major population centers that could have the effect of removing their “hostage” status.
The last has turned out to be a largely redundant measure since the strenuous efforts of the Pentagon/NASA as well as their Soviet/Russian counterparts to devise a workable BMD all have come up well short of producing anything meaningful.
U.S. President Gerald Ford and Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev sign joint communiqué to limit strategic offensive arms, 1974. (Wikimedia)
Unfortunately, two policy developments have awakened the nuclear issue from its somnambulant state. One is Washington’s abandonment of arms control treaties that were important parts of the nuclear stability package. George Bush removed us from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty(while observing its provisions), and effectively voided restrictions on ballistic missile defense in the vain hope of countering remote threats from prospective nuclear powers (Iran), bolstering the sense of security of some East Europeans (a non-solution to a non-problem)and – frankly – to get under the Russians’ skin. Barack Obama had neither the conviction nor political courage to reverse those retrograde moves.
Under Donald Trump, there has been a comprehensive plan to break free of all manner of restrictive commitments — military, diplomatic or economic. Deployment of regional BMD systems directed at Russian, Chinese and North Korean forces has been expanded despite their demonstrated efficiencies (one version could not even protect Saudi oil complexes or U.S. air bases in Iraq from primitive Iranian missiles).
Modernization of Nuclear Arsenals
The other troubling development concerns the modernization of nuclear arsenals by both the United States and Russia. President Barack Obama committed us to a trillion-dollar program to refine and upgrade American warheads and delivery systems over the next 20 years. The strategic rationale is obscure.
The Russian hypersonic missile development is a parallel development. In a purely technical sense, they obviously are “ahead” of us. And that irritates the hell out of the American security establishment.
Does being “ahead” have any practical meaning, however? Is there a genuine contest for advantage that translates into their gaining an upper hand in some sense or other? The clear answer is “NO!” It is strategically meaningless. Why? Because it in no way alters the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction.
Theoretically, there are only two imaginable ways to do that. The most significant would be development/deployment of a massive, truly effective BMD system that shields population centers and other critical, high value sites from retaliatory attack. That has shown itself to be impossible – even if the initiator of an attack succeeded in reducing the other side’s retaliatory forces by some significant fraction.
A totally disarming first strike in principle could be the second method logically to qualify MAD. It cannot be done, though.Fortunately. The combination of SLBMs, cruise missiles, and increased warhead lethality makes the idea of a disarming first strike a pipe dream of military strategists disengaged from reality. Hypersonic weapons do not change that calculus.
Accuracies of MIRVed warheads were lowered to 100 feet many years ago.(CEP, or Circular Error Probability = 50 percent chance of landing within radius.) Reducing that to 20 feet, therefore, is pointless – the silo is destroyed either way unless its missile has been “launched on warning” (tripwire automaticity as ultimate assurance of retaliatory strike). Similarly for missile defense.
Then, there is the question of an incoming missile’s speed. Current ICBMs that may give 18 minutes warning do not permit any defensive measures to be taken. If they arrive on target within six minutes, there is no additional benefit to the attacker. Today’s missiles that follow a straight trajectory cannot be intercepted — with or without their distracting decoys.
The fact that “swerve” capable hypersonic missiles can mambo their way to the target adds nothing to their effectiveness. Anyone who tells you that the Russians gain a strategic advantage thereby is lying — either in order to extract larger sums for R & D from the Treasury or to accentuate irrational fears of Russia.
President Vladimir Put visiting an exhibit of advanced weapons before meeting with Russia’s Defence Ministry Board, December 2019. (The Kremlin)
Finally, no reasonably sane leader would risk national suicide for a 1 percent chance of getting away with a first strike and surviving retaliation. There is no stake worth even contemplating it. Indeed, that logic holds even were there an impossible 50 percent chance of pulling it off.
Today, the United States and Russia are not engaged in a life-or-death struggle for world domination or for ideological vindication. Ascribing anything like that notion to Vladimir Putin is simply a sign of mental derangement – ours, not his. The same holds for the super-power competition between the United States and China.
So, if this line of reasoning is compelling, why did Russia’s leaders bother with investment of great sums to produce hyper-sonic missiles? The answer is a matter of speculation. Doubtless, technological and bureaucratic momentum has much to do with it. These sorts of long-term programs take on a life of their own — just as they do in Washington. The is no more reason for the United States to squander a trillion dollars in refining our nuclear arsenal as two successive administrations have committed us to doing.
In Russia’s case, there likely is another factor at work. Historically, Moscow leaders have exaggerated American technical capabilities; they have something of an inferiority complex on this score despite their own remarkable accomplishments. It is particularly acute in the nuclear realm — most especially in regard to ballistic missile defense.
This goes back to Nixon’s proposed Safeguard system, followed two decades later by Reagan’s Star War’s plans. Neither of which in actuality had the potential to alter the strategic balance. This free-floating strategic anxiety should be placed in historical perspective. There is a touch of paranoia in the Russian strategic mind — engraved by the events of the 20th century.
Some of this sentiment is conveyed by Putin’s remarks in announcing the deployment of hypersonic missiles: “We’re used to being in the position of catching up. That no longer is the case. Russia is the only country that has hypersonic weapons.”
To some unknowable degree these neuralgic points in the Russian psyche have been stimulated by the aggressive American program to surround Russia with BMD systems.
“Might it just be conceivable that the United States could perfect them, make it work, and somehow jeopardize the credibility of our nuclear deterrent? Why are they expending so much money and effort? Why do those BMD sites make Poland and the Baltics feel more secure when they are in fact militarily useless and it makes no sense for us to attack them?”
Informed analysis suggests that the answer is negative to all these questions. The alternative explanation: U.S. leaders are inclined to do feckless things; they are strategically obtuse.
The broader lesson is that there is truth to the old adage: “Russia never is as strong as it seems; Russia is never as weak as it seems.” We wrote it off as a world power in the 1990s and never since made the proper adjustment. That perception may have contributed to the glaring failure of the United States’ intelligence community in missing Russia’s remarkable break-throughs in weaponry.
It’s intelligence that counts more than Intelligence.
What are the implications of China’s Communist Party choosing Xi Jinping as its leader for life?
He may be elected for another 5 year term. He is not “chosen for life”.
He is the Titular head of the Country. He is the spokesperson and the Chinese People’s representative.
As Commander-in-chief of the army he is not allowed declare war.
Being party General Secretary, he is a very powerful figure.
He does not RULE. As Chairman his role is consultative and decisions are taken by the Council, approved (or sometimes overruled) by the Chinese People’s Congress.
I think a person should think and maybe study basic facts before formulating a question.
By the way FYI the CPC has about 2430 members, 847 of whom belong to 7 parties other than the CCP. Among the members of the Council there are at least 2 Senior Ministers who belong to parties other than the CCP.
As an aside, purely my own assessment, I get the impression that the main priority of each of the members of the Chinese People’s Congress is the welfare of the Chinese People.
Super 6-1 Shot Down
Quick and Easy Calzones Recipe
Quick and Easy Calzones filled with pepperoni, mozzarella cheese and marinara then topped with Italian seasoning and parmesan. Not only are these calzones so easy to make, but they taste absolutely amazing!
x
Quick and easy calzones is one of our family favorite, picky eater approved recipes that we can make fast on those busy weeknights. If you love a good homemade pizza recipe, then you are going to love this one!
x
This recipe is great because each person can pick their own toppings (if you want) and then there is no fighting about what is on the pizza! Or, you can make them all the same and serve it as an appetizer.
We have done it both ways, and either way is amazing. So, make sure you bookmark, pin, or save this recipe so you can find it quickly when you need an easy dinner recipe to make.
Ingredients Needed For Our Quick and Easy Calzones Recipe:
Refrigerated pizza crust (your favorite kind)
Marinara sauce
Shredded mozzarella cheese
Pepperoni slices
Melted butter
Italian seasoning
Grated Parmesan cheese
How To Make Our Quick and Easy Calzones Recipe:
Begin by preheating your oven to 400 degrees fahrenheit.
Then, spray a baking sheet with nonstick cooking spray and set it aside.
x
Now, get out your refrigerated pizza crust and cut it into 6 equal squares (as best as you can).
x
Next, in the middle of each of the squares place about 2 tablespoons (or more if you like extra sauce), a little less than ¼ cup of shredded mozzarella cheese, and 4 pepperoni slices.
Take one corner of the square and fold it over to another corner to form a triangle.
x
Once you have formed a triangle around the calzone fillings, use a fork and go around the open sides and press it into the dough to seal it closed.
Next, place each of the filled calzones on the prepared baking sheet.
x
Using the melted butter, get out a pastry brush and spread some of the melted butter on top of each of the calzones and then sprinkle some of the italian seasoning and grated parmesan cheese on top.
Then place the baking sheet in the oven for 10-12 minutes and bake them until the tops are golden brown.
x
When they are done, take them out and serve them hot with warm pizza sauce for dipping!
Make the Dough Yourself
If you do not want to use refrigerated dough, you don’t have to! You can make homemade dough and use it in place of the refrigerated dough.
A complete separation from Western predatory economics, using the vast creativity and devotion to Mother Russia of the people there, and Russia will succeed beyond anyone's expectations. It will become a beacon for what is possible.-John
It is unmistakable. The United States has successfully brought about a global realignment in accordance with their obvious plans. And it looks, right now, that everything is going forward to plan. Much to our (most informed) observations.
Here, I just want to review some of these victories.
War with Russia.
Take over of the levers- of-power in Korea.
A major military presence in Australia.
A major rearming of Japan.
Complete control of the narrative.
America to rule the world and, in the darkness, bind them.
Why did Russia invade the Ukraine?
Contrary to American media, the invasion was not unprovoked. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, America has been pushing NATO, which is a US sepoy operation, ever closer to Russian borders in what, to anyone who took fifth-grade geography, is an obvious program of military encirclement. Of the five countries other than Russia littoral to the Black Sea, three, Turkey, Romania, and Bulgaria, are now in NATO. America has been moving toward bringing in the Ukraine and Georgia. After Georgia would have come Azerbaijan, putting American forces on the Caspian with access to Iran and Kazakhstan. This is calculated aggression over the long term, obvious to the—what? Ten percent? Fifteen percent?—of Americans who know what the Caucasus is.
Putin has said, over and over, that Russia could not allow hostile military forces on its border any more than the US would allow Chinese military bases in Mexico and China or missile forces in Cuba. Washington kept pushing. Russia said, no more. In short, America brought on the war.
Among people who follow such things, there are two ways of looking at the invasion. First, that Washington thought Putin was bluffing, and he wasn’t. Second, that America intentionally forced Russia to choose between allowing NATO into the Ukraine, a major success for Washington’s world empire; or fighting, also a success for Washington as it would cause the results it has caused.
From the latter understanding, America pulled off, at least at first glance, an astonishing geopolitical victory over Russia. Nordstream II blocked, crippling sanctions placed on Russia, many of its banks kicked out of SWIFT, economic integration of Europe and Asia slowed or reversed, Germany to spend 113 billion on rearming (largely meaning buying American costume-jewelry weaponry), Europe forced to buy expensive American LNG, and Europe made dependent on America for energy. All this in a few days without loss of a single American soldier. This presumably at least in part engineered by Virginia Newland who, though she looks like a fireplug with leprosy, seems effectively Machiavellian.
So The United States got itself a war with Russia.
As a result, an already subservient NATO and EU is now gleefully submitted to American dominance. Russia, they believe, is globally isolated, and the first stage is set.
Russia is isolated and alone, and “tied up” in a “quagmire” in Ukraine that the United States controls. It’s NATO group is working that front.
Next up…
China.
The QUAD to start a war with China..
This means that a QUAD must be put in place and strengthened. The QUAD is an NATO of the Pacific to “counter” China. So while NATO will counter Russia, QUAD will counter China.
To “counter China” means “a war with China”.
Sorry, I just plow though all the bullshit and rhetoric. I call it as it is. It makes life a lot easier, don’t you know.
The closest to China that America can get to is Taiwan, but if it goes any further, YOU WILL SEE Washington DC, New York City, and San Francisco all reduced to radioactive rubble. So Washington DC, is trying to dance around and sing it’s songs.
The USA tried to gain “footholds” in Xinjiang (with the Uighur Muslims), in Hong Kong (with the “pro-democracy” color revolutions), in Tibet (with a color revolution there), and all failed. So, then it tried to launch “color revolutions” in the nations bordering China. This included Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Myanmar (Burma). All have pretty much failed to one degree or the other.
So what is left? The QUAD.
Already American surrogates…
South Korea
Australia
Japan / India
Let’s take a look at these three “victories”.
Change in the levers- of-power in Korea.
Victory 2.
So right now, by less than a 1% margin, a USA-backed conservative took over the leadership of South Korea. He pledges [1] a harsher stance against North Korea aggression, [2] a relook at the Korean relations with China, and [3] much closer ties to the United States.
Honestly, we don’t know what will come of all this.
What we do know is that he has no political experience. Much like Trump has none, and Volodymyr Zelensky (Ukraine) had none. Previous recent events suggest easy manipulation by others. Namely, the United States deep-state.
But we really don’t know the true and real situation.
What I can tell you is that the American neocons in K-street in Washington, DC are joyful with glee.
For the last four years, they watched in horror as South Korea became friendlier with China, and less friendly with the United States. South Korea wanted to reunify with North Korea, and wanted the denuclearization of Korea. All of which horrified the American neocons.
But…
Their plans included a war in Korea. This friendliness was unacceptable.
This is what The Diplomat had to say about how unhappy the USA was with South Korea.
There are deep diplomatic differences between President Joe Biden of the United States and President Moon Jae-in of South Korea.
Biden wants Moon to abandon his peace-oriented policy toward North Korea, but Moon insists on continuing to try, despite the underwhelming results so far achieved. Can the next president of South Korea make any better progress?
Another point of contention between Seoul and Washington is Biden’s desire for the South Korean military to take a more active role in the wider region, in particular by participating in various U.S.-led multilateral military exercises. The incoming South Korean president will need to finesse this issue carefully if relations with China are to remain cordial.
Can the next president of South Korea initiate any new policies toward the United States, China, and North Korea? The truth is that South Korea’s policies toward these countries are interdependent in many different ways. If there are any solutions to be found for this Gordian Knot, then the ROK-U.S. alliance is the best hope we have. So how should we envisage the future of the long-standing alliance between the ROK and the United States?
Moon’s Promises to China: The Three Noes
When the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system was deployed on South Korean soil, China objected vigorously and used its commercial leverage to punish South Korea. As a consequence, Moon was obliged to placate China by making three promises. Will these “three noes” cause difficulties for the next president?
The first promise was that the United States will not deploy additional THAAD systems in South Korea. The U.S. budget for fiscal year 2021 has no funding for additional THAAD systems, but there are some funds allocated for upgrading the existing one to integrate it into a remote networked command and control system, together with Patriot and other systems deployed near the Korean Peninsula. This is a third and final phase based on the U.S. adoption of the Joint All Domain Command and Control system which U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) plans to adopt shortly.
The second promise is that trilateral security cooperation between the U.S., Japan, and South Korea will not develop into a military alliance. Given the dire state of relations with Japan, this promise is easy to keep for any South Korean president.
The third promise is that South Korea will not participate in the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s (MDA) regional missile defense system. In practice the THAAD system deployed at Seongju has already been integrated into the MDA’s regional architecture. Staff at the South Korean Ministry of National Defense (MND) have implicitly acknowledged the fact. As for any further cooperation with the MDA, the MND has made clear that it prefers to develop its own missile defense system.
It seems, then, that Moon’s “three noes” will not seriously constrain the next president.
Hypersonic Weapons on South Korean Soil?
At the recent Biden-Moon summit, South Korea agreed to become more actively involved with the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy. Following the takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban in August 2021, it is appropriate to discuss the future of the ROK-U.S. military alliance.
China is continuing its military buildup, and seeking to extend and strengthen its diplomatic influence across the region. Against this background, it is time for the United States to increase its military resources to counter Chinese adventurism.
Several nations are developing hypersonic ballistic and cruise missiles, either medium-range (following Trump’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty) or long-range. Chinese and Russian weapons systems are well advanced, and the United States has initiated or reactivated several hypersonic missile development projects under various names: the U.S. Navy’s Prompt Global Strike (PGS); U.S. Army’s Long Range Hypersonic Weapon; U.S. Air Force’s AGM-183 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon and Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile; and DARPA’s Tactical Boost Glide and Operational Fires and Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept.
As commentators have noted, though, the U.S. would have to find a place to deploy its missiles.
Indeed, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper explicitly suggested that U.S. allies, including Australia, Japan, and South Korea, should allow the United States to deploy hypersonic weapons to assist in the strategic deterrence of Chinese threats.
Any deployment of such U.S.-developed hypersonic missiles on South Korea soil would inevitably be strenuously resisted by China, much like THAAD in 2017, and could seriously unbalance South Korean foreign policy. Recently, however, Australia has categorically rejected any such deployment, and with none of the other regional allies happy to accept them, it seems that South Korea is off the hook.
There is no particular reason why the United States needs to deploy hypersonic weapons on South Korean territory. There are no specific high-value targets in China’s northeastern provinces, and other U.S. allies seem better placed for the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command to manage Chinese threats, such as Japan and the Philippines, not the mention the U.S. territory of Guam.
Nuclear ballistic missiles can be identified, tracked, and classified as incoming threats by missile defense systems, for example those established by the MDA, but PGS and medium-range hypersonic missiles equipped with conventional warheads cannot be intercepted by any missile defense system. It is unclear whether the U.S. prefers hypersonic-capable and conventional PGS weapons to the existing medium-range ballistic missiles with nuclear capability. This uncertainty opens an opportunity for South Korea, now that limitations on its indigenous missile development have been lifted. New South Korean medium-range ballistic missiles would supplement U.S. capability in countering Chinese military threats to Northeast Asian security, as well as deterring the North Korean military threat.
Other Issues Affecting the Future of the ROK-U.S. Alliance
Some of the frontrunners to be the next president of South Korea have spoken about making changes to the ROK military and to the command-and-control structure of the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC), but they have said very little about the future of the ROK-U.S. alliance. Some military commentators argue that South Korea should pay more attention to operational and tactical matters than to political and strategic issues. In that regard, there are a variety of topics to be considered.
An Expanding AllianceFirst, from the U.S. perspective, rebuilding the alliance is a priority. During the Trump era, his transactional and populist approach opened up some deep divisions between South Korea and the United States. Biden is now working to repair the damage. More than that, however, he also wants to extend the scope of the alliance beyond its historic focus on threats to the Korean Peninsula by involving Seoul in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy, a thinly-veiled project to contain China.
A related initiative targets common domain awareness, with the ROK military trying to up its game by taking new responsibility for space, electronic, information, and cyberwarfare. To this end, the first meeting of a newly established ROK-U.S. ICT cooperation committee was held on August 5. Also, the ROK Air Force has reorganized its combat development group into an air and space combat research group, so that it can share a Common Operational Picture with the U.S. Space Force. The ROK Army and the ROK Navy are also getting more involved with space; for example the Cheonro-an satellite now monitors the surrounding seas of the Korean Peninsula, including the East China Sea.
In addition, now that South Korea is explicitly committed to more involvement in regional security, including potentially acting with the USFK to contingencies in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, the scope of the ROK-U.S. alliance has broadened. Future roles and missions for the ROK-U.S. CFC will be hampered by disparities between the two militaries unless a combined combat development group is established. The Japan-U.S. alliance has benefitted from bilateral joint research and development projects, and something similar is needed for the ROK-U.S. alliance.
Changing DoctrinesSecond, there is widespread agreement that attempts to strengthen the capacity of the ROK-U.S. alliance should focus on doctrinal standardization. The United States is currently undergoing a great transformation of its expeditionary forces. Thus, the U.S. Army is establishing three Multi-Domain Task Forces, for the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Arctic. The U.S. Marine Corps also has a new mobile, agile, and flexible force, the Marine Littoral Regiment, designed to fight in a contested maritime environment. Likewise, the U.S. Navy has its Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations concept, for which it wants to build light amphibious ships, rather than large LHDs or LHAs.
These changes to U.S. forces mean that South Korea’s military will also need to change to ensure the future success of the ROK-U.S. alliance. Specifically, South Korean forces must pursue both technological and doctrinal interoperability, so that they can effectively interface with the new operational concepts of the United States. An integrated ROK Army, Navy Air Force, and Marine Corps force has been suggested, which could then operate in combined units between the ROK and U.S. militaries at the squadron and battalion level. And perhaps the United States should be invited to serve as an advisor in developing the concepts and frameworks of Defense Reform 2050, currently under development by the MND.
New Platforms, New Cooperation Third, now that South Korea is building an aircraft carrier, close liaison with the U.S. Navy and Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) is needed. With the navies of South Korea and Japan both building or refitting light aircraft carriers, close cooperation is essential to ensure maximum interoperability. The U.S.-U.K. agreement on cooperative CV operation is the obvious model to follow. A considerable degree of interoperability has already been established, due to the F-35B take-off and landing system, which is the same on the U.S. Navy’s CVs, but much more is possible. The U.S. Navy has built up a vast repertoire of skills and know-how, which should be shared with South Korea and Japan for mutual benefit in the operation of CVs.
Fourth, some operational and tactical improvements are necessary. For example, South Korea and the United States need to better coordinate their strategic assets with the JMSDF, specifically: intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets such as Global Hawk UAVs; airborne early warning and control assets; air refueling tankers and heavy lift aircraft; aircraft carriers; and amphibious assets. Also, the U.S. Navy needs a permanent presence in the form of destroyers at South Korean naval bases; the current arrangements with a one-star admiral are inadequate to deter potential threats from North Korea and China. And the South Korean Agency for Defense Development should be working on more research and development projects together with the U.S. DARPA, such as how to operate Manned-Unmanned Teaming between the two fleets. NATO has a variety of cooperative arrangements between multiple countries, and some of these could be usefully emulated by the ROK-U.S. alliance.
In short, the ROK-U.S. alliance is at a time of transition, and a lot of changes will be required to maintain the strength and effectiveness of the alliance into the future. The next South Korean president will have plenty of work to do.
Conclusion
Most of South Korea’s presidential candidates are proposing policies toward the United States, China, and North Korea that simply rehash previous ideas from the left or right, and in any case are based on outdated and obsolete scenarios.
The world has moved on, and the ROK-U.S. alliance needs to acknowledge the fact.
When the next president of South Korea is inaugurated in May 2022, he or she will have a very full inbox: the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, ever worsening climate change, the regional impact of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, growing doubts about the dependability of Pax Americana, and uncertainty over the future of the global economy.
Some candidates have flirted with populism during the campaign, but South Korea’s foreign and security policy needs someone grounded in reality. Thus, it is greatly to be hoped that the next president of South Korea will have the necessary experience and qualifications in these areas, and that they will choose the very best people for the relevant cabinet appointments. It would also be helpful if he or she has clearly articulated their approach to the United States, China, and North Korea so that there is a mandate for change – because change is coming to the ROK-U.S. alliance, like it or not.
This article was written one year ago.
Since that time, the United States government lavishly funded the USA-friendly candidate who now won the election. Whether or not he will pay-back the billions of dollars that he owes the United States is up in the air.
My assumptive guess is that he will.
Though, to what extent is unknown.
My other guess is that some very contentious events will take place on the Korean pennsula in the next two years. Perhaps diplomatic. Perhaps economic. Perhaps trade. Perhaps posturing. Perhaps social. Perhaps military. But there will be some changing of various alignments on the Geo-Political sphere.
It all depends on the power of the personality of the new leadership.
If he is weak, it will be like Morrison in Australia, or like Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy of the Ukraine. He will end up becoming fantastically wealthy (Zelenskkyy became a multi-billionaire in a few years), but at the cost of the economic strength of his nation. As what has happened to Australia.
If he is strong, he might be like Ou Ratana of Cambodia. He would forge new alliances, strengthen existing ones, and bridge the various differences in opinion that seem to be at everyones’ throat.
Weak nations paint huge “bullseyes” on their country. Whether Korea is one such nation, we have yet to see.
A major USA military presence in Australia.
Victory 3
The Morrison administartion is solidly pro-neocon. Yes. You read that correct. Not pro-America. He’s pro-neocon.
Any moment now, Australians are going to line up for their spicy “Kool-Aide”. And start wearing shiny new sneakers to reach Heaven via Comet Nirvana.
Neocons believe in the Rapture. I mean, they really, REALLY believe.
In other words, destroy the world to make it better. God will protect the worthy and “smite” the evil.
Its sort of like burning your house to the ground to protect it from fire.
Morrison allowed his trade with China to collapse, and the economy of Australia to take a complete nose-dive all for the betterment of the United States. He broke long-term trade deals with France and other nations in favor of having American nuclear sub basing, and American nuclear weapon basing inside of Australia.
It’s America-first.
As long as he gets his reserved ticket to Heaven, he doesn’t give a flying fuck about Australians. In his mind, he has them “covered”.
Covered in shit, that is.
It’s Australians last; back of the bus. Last in line. With their own water drinking fountains, and their own isolated schools.
He’s such a crazed fanatic, that Mike Pompeo looks like a moderate.
He [1] openly calls China an enemy, and [2] is busy setting up Australia on a war-footing for a major war in the Pacific. This includes [3] servicing and supplying American and British nuclear vessels, and [4] placing nuclear weapons and support structures on Australian soil. All the time, [5] breaking trade with China, [6] and engaging in racist actions against Chinese.
It’s hard to imagine a more bellicose and dangerous posture. But that’s the way it is. Australia and it’s people will all now gladly die for Washington DC, and America.
Of course, Morrison will fondle his jewels, and swim with his champaigne and caviar in his plush mansions. Now well funded by the United States printing presses.
Japan forming a status quo fence.
Victory 4
The greatest fear that the United States has is a two-front war; where the United States must fight both Russia and China simultaneously. The overall plan seems to be clear enough. Attack Russia, and then China, one by one. Not simultaneously.
So the plan is to prevent a two front assault. Dealing with Russia alone is already taxing the United States in many ways. Tack on the fiasco that China would crate, and it must be avoided at all costs.
One week after the invasion of the Ukraine by Russia, the QUAD held a video meeting and discussed what to do to “contain China”. For after all, that is the purpose of the QUAD after all.
Now Japan wants to host American nuclear missiles and bombs.
Leaders from Japan, the United States, Australia and India agreed [1]during their virtual meeting Thursday that they oppose any unilateral use of force to change the status quo in their region.
This was reported by the Japanese government.
This meeting took place, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine brings renewed concerns over China’s assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific.
The four major Indo-Pacific democracies (the QUAD) also agreed [2]to launch a new humanitarian assistance and disaster relief mechanism. This mechanism will “provide a channel for communication” as they each address and respond to the crisis in Ukraine.
In Tokyo, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said he agreed [3]with his counterparts (QUAD members; Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Joe Biden) to hold an in-person summit in the Japanese capital “in a few months.”
"We agreed that we should not allow any unilateral change to the status quo by force in the Indo-Pacific region like the latest case (in Ukraine) and we need to step up efforts to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific in times like this,"
-he told reporters at his office.
The four countries of the Quad group have been deepening their ties and cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region, where China is boosting its military and economic clout. Japan is planning to host a Quad summit in the first half of this year.
Among the Quad members, India’s lack of response to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has been in focus, given its traditionally close ties with Moscow. India abstained from voting on a nonbinding resolution at the U.N. General Assembly condemning the invasion by Russia and demanding its troops withdraw immediately from Ukraine.
The joint statement did not explicitly criticize Russia for the invasion, over which Moscow has faced sharp condemnation and economic sanctions from countries including the United States, Japan and Australia.
"The Quad leaders discussed the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and assessed its broader implications,"
But in their commitment to a “free and open Indo-Pacific,” they emphasized it means that “the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states is respected” and “countries are free from military, economic, and political coercion.”
Before the Quad meeting, Kishida said the Indo-Pacific region, especially East Asia, should not allow any unilateral attempt to alter the status quo by force.
Chinese ships have been repeatedly spotted in waters near the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea, a group of uninhabited islets controlled by Japan and claimed by China. China-Taiwan tensions remain high as Beijing considers the island as a renegade province to be reunified with the mainland by force if necessary.
Keep in mind that Taiwan is not a nation. It is a territory of China. So, the “out” in this posture is whether or not the QUAD wants to get involved in a Chiense civil war.
Because if they do, China will nuke the living shit out of them.
Complete control of the narrative.
Victory 5
It’s not even bothering commenting on. It’s all hate-Russia-24-7. It’s everywhere, and there are ZERO alternative voices. If you try to say anything positive about Russia, you are unplugged.
The United States has authored this situation and it is in place
And it appears that yet again, the United States will emerge victorious. It certainly is victorious right now. Everything is falling into place.
Europe is now economically dependent upon the USA.
The BRI connecting China to Europe has been interrupted.
Russia is economically isolated from the West.
A strong QUAD “fence” is in place and will be used to “contain” China.
Some side effects
Now, there are some side-effects of all of this.
Whether or not these elements are part of a grander scheme or plan is unknown. What is known is that these elements will influence the United States, and it’s allies in both Europe and in the QUAD.
These elements are…
Rampaging inflation for all nations that trade using the USD.
Resulting in massive price increases in all things imported.
A villianized Russia.
Seizure of all Russan assets; money, accounts, boats, and businesses.
A partitioning / slicing up of the globe to one side or the other.
Now; a view from the other side
But what we do know, for those of us paying attention, that both Russia and China view these turn of events as expected. None of the events that are transpiring are a surprise.
As such I suppose …
Inflation of the USD is welcomed.
This inflation will further weaken the USD and the US economy.
SWIFT is being displaced by CIPS.
CIPS is backed by gold, resources, and manufacturing capability.
SWIFT is backed by American debt. Now at $30 trillion dollars.
The key for a united Asia is to allow the USA (and it’s serrogates) to collapse internally without nuclear war.
To do this, they are holding a (figurative) nuclear shotgun to the head of the United States and telling it to “mind it’s manners”. One twitch, one wrong move, and it’s “adios muchachos“.
To this end, they have maintained a very lethal stance against the West, threatening complete and absolute destruction.
It used to be that just having a few nuclear weaons was enough. But no. The American “leadership” are so stupid and ignorant that they had to be told directly; We have nuclear weapons and we WILL use them. Stop violating our “red lines”.
This in turn, is forcing the West to resort to [1] bioweapons and other systems, namely [2] economic, to wage war. Things that are not so obvious to a horrifically dumbed down nation.
Bioweapon warfare
In the grand scheme this methodology is (apparently) failing.
The 8 bioweapons against Chinese livestock did not create famine.
The three bioweapons against China did very little damage to China. Instead it made it very resilient against bioweapons.
Now the R&D; Biolabs and biowarfare are both in the open. Russia and China are making an issue of it.
The need for mRNA injections is collapsing. Which leaves America and the West particuliarly open to a bioweapon attack.
The population will simply ignore the warnings from the US government for isolation and masking. Thinking it’s more of the same nonsense.
The public will ignore all bioweapons protection measures.
So what’s left?
Economic Warfare
Economic warfare. But, contrary to the “news” reports…
Russia is not collapsing.
China is not collapsing.
But the USA and the West are starting to.
At this stage, anything can happen.
Anything can happen
The USA might still have some “tricks up its sleeve”, but from my point of view, it’s truly a dying empire; rotten to the core, and weakly and meakly thrashing about dangerously, while young, fresh and talented Kungfu masters watch on in alert readiness.
But all that is only my speculation.
American neocons see the world differently than I do…
The score card, that we visibly see, is 5-0 with the United States taking the lead in all victories and in all arenas.
But you know. I don’t count battles on a score card. I don’t say “yay! My guys sunk this ship. Boo! They did this!”. I look at the big picture.
And you should too.
I look at the basic strengths of society. A strong society, one that has a unified and intelligent population that is making things, and performing meaningful industry is going to overtake a weaker one who counts beads, argues with each other over trivalities, and who points blame at others instead of rolling up its sleeve and making changes to things that are not working.
2022 03 15 10 34
In the table above, I greatly simplified a number of points. Now, before you howl in anger, consider what I am trying to convey.
Yes. The USA does export. It exports expensive military equipment, and some wheat. It says it exports a lot of grains, but when you look at the actual numbers you find the exports are not comparatively large. The vast bulk of the monetary value of exports is military and aviation. These are trivial. Without a war, and with trade embargoes, there are no markets. While Asia exports everything.
Yes. The USA has farms. However, they are mostly corporate, big business entities that dependent upon imported fertilizer, and a working power grid to operate. Remove those two things, and you end up with a dust bowl. Not so in Russia and China. They have thousands of small, versitle, and adaptable farms.
Yes. The USA has industry. But it’s industry, not manufacturing. An office building staffed with accountants, logistics and warehouses, marketing people, diversity officers, HR, and lawyers do not make things. You need manufacturing facilities. Not just warehouses.
Yes. The USA has a military. It has over 800+ bases all over the world and very advanced high-tech equipment. But sitting in a office building pushing buttons on drones, and using a military that are unable to do more than five push ups is not a military force to be afraid of. It is something that looks good on paper, but not what you want to defend your life with.
So over all, in a big picture, Asia (in a one-to-one) head-to-head conflict will overtake the collective West.
As in this quote from my e-mail…
All we need to do is to rid our head of the USD-based capitalist miasma, USD-based dividends included.
Why does anyone need the USD showing a fake USD-based GDP to demonstrate that they have a good economy?
Why would Russia collapse with the closing of McDonalds, Starbucks, and the casino-stock market?
Russia has the world's largest land mass.
It has abundant clean water and agricultural land.
It has only one-tenth of China's population. No one will ever starve or lack water in Russia.
But even better is that they have huge stores of energy and minerals in the ground. They will never lack anything that is necessary for the advancement of their society.
More importantly, they also have the brains to develop technology and they have a strong army to defend themselves against anyone, including worthy foes such as Napoleon and Hitler, who were almost invincible before they attacked Russia.
Should Putin be afraid of sleepy Biden, dopey Bojo, dogfaced Stoltenberg, maleficent Ursula, and funny Zelensky?
I rest my case.
In geopolitics, you do not own anything that you cannot defend. The rest is bullshit and balderdash. Even cavemen knew that. In economics, Russia and China have a perfect fit.
China has too many people for not enough agricultural land and clean water. It does not have enough energy or minerals in the ground.
Russia gives China what it needs, and China will make whatever Russia needs. Everyone will live happy fruitful lives in peace and harmony without the need to ever see a single dollar.
America wants to whip the G7 to sanction China, what a delusional dying empire!
The destruction comes in many forms…
“In two weeks, China, Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan will reveal an independent international monetary and financial system. It will be based on a new international currency, calculated from an index of national currencies of the participating countries and international commodity prices”
-Sputnik News, Mar. 14, 2022.
Along with the new currency, Russia and China will also reveal their Unfriendly Nation Lists.
So I stand by my belief that theres more things down the pipe. Never forget about who you are all dealing with…
America vs China.
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.
Well it’s official, the “great experiment” in a utopian government is over. The United States is DEAD. It just doesn’t know it yet. Now it’s time to figure out what to replace it with.
"There are two kinds of people in this world; those with loaded guns and those who dig."
-- Blondie.
Yah.
The wealthy took over the United States and looted it completely.
Do you think that I am exaggerating?
Let’s open up with a little blurb.
Massive Emerald discovered
That’s a mighty big rock.
The massive emerald, which weighs 794 pounds and stands around 4.3 feet high was unearthed a month ago, 200 meters deep inside the Carnaiba Mine in Brazil
The Laos – China High Speed Rail line opened up.
From Gordon Dumoulin…
The high financial risks or another example of the debt trap diplomacy?
China to Laos HST
The official opening of the high speed train route from China’s Kunming to Vientiane, capital of Laos was major news in both countries. “From land-locked to high speed land-linked” as I wrote a few weeks ago:
.
https://lnkd.in/gprAmyRT . Not headline news in Europe or USA, understandably in today’s Covid tense circumstances but having read several major news sites on this event, it ranged from considerations between Laos economic developments and the risks of loans to China to a straightforward example of another Chinese ‘debt trap diplomacy’.
.
I have not yet come across any article in US or European media which did not mention the risks and increasing dependence of Laos to China in the light of the rail connection. Imagine that! . Few other perspectives from this week; . First perspective. Several news items in the West quote an AIDDATA report “Banking on the Belt and Road” citing that Laos has the highest debt of all countries to China. I did not read this 166-page report yet. I did though quickly check who or what is AIDDATA.
.
CIA!
.
It is a research lab at William & Mary’s Global Research Institute in Williamsburg, VA. Directly funded by among others the US Secretaries of State and Defense and in close collaboration with the National Endowment of Democracy, an ‘overt’ arm of the CIA as some might call it. . While not disputing the content of the report as I have not read it yet, should the nature of ‘independence’ of this report not raise questions by at least a few journalists for further research ? . A second perspective related to the so-called Chinese debt trap diplomacy. Yes criticism is definitely healthy but a balance (in criticism) not less important. The news this week that Deborah Bräutigam, Director of the China Africa Research Institute at John Hopkins University was framed by the BBC. . She is well-known for having denounced the Chinese debt trap diplomacy in several reports/books by facts and numbers. Her telephone interview with the BBC was cut in such a way that it seemed she supports the debt trap diplomacy narrative… to her own horror. . A third perspective; unexploded US cluster bombs in Laos had to be removed before being able to build this high speed railway. Over 260 million US cluster bombs were dropped on Laos from 1964-1973 (more than all bombs on Europe during WWII), making Laos by far the most heavily bombed country in global history. 30% of those bombs remained unexploded and is still daily reality for many people in Laos. Historical perspectives.
.
American bombs all over Laos. . Not intending to judge content or painting black-white angles, let us all just strive to broaden perspectives and balance. And most of all, hope that this high speed railway (which is definitely a fact) will bring a brighter, inter-connected future for the people from Laos and China, peacefully, economically and socially.
.
Remember that if tiny, tiny Laos can have a high-quality high-speed train line, why can the mighty exceptional America as well?
Jordi Comments…
The China-Laos Railway, a landmark project of high-quality Belt and Road cooperation, started operation on Friday.
The electrified passenger and freight railway runs 1,035 kilometers, including 422 kilometers in Laos, from the city of Kunming, southwest China’s Yunnan Province, to Lao capital Vientiane.
The architecture style of the railway stations is designed to feature local culture.
Sleek bullet trains will travel at a speed of 160 kilometers per hour, through mountains and valleys.
High Speed Train.
Construction of the Laos section started in December 2016, and construction of the China part linking Yuxi and the border town of Mohan started in December 2015.
A total of 167 tunnels and 301 bridges were built along the new sections stretching over 900 kilometers, after builders overcame many technical difficulties.
As a docking project between the Belt and Road Initiative and Laos’ strategy to convert itself from a landlocked country to a land-linked one, the line will slash the travel time between Kunming to Vientiane to about 10 hours.
The railway could potentially increase aggregate income in Laos by up to 21 percent over the long term, the World Bank said in a report last year.
David BK Tan comments…
Actually the significance of #China-#Laos railway is that it is a dual-purpose HSR i.e. it can transport cargoes or passengers across borders. This would bring a disruption to shipping industry as companies can opt for the intermodal transportation i.e. moving large-sized goods in the same steel-based containers through two or more modes of transport. In other words, using a mix of truck-rail-ship for the purposes of turnaround efficiency and cost effectiveness.
If you look at European and Japanese HSR, they are meant to ferry passengers only and so HSR does not disrupt the shipping industry which is dominated by European shippers.
But the benefits brought about by intermodal transportation via HSR are significant when one looks at China-Laos railway. Below video is an example.
The train from China departed for Laos on Dec 4 from Kunming loaded with Yunnan's specialty vegetables. Specialty products of Laos and Thailand are expected to be delivered at the Kunming Tengjun international land port in Kunming on the return trip, which will further be transported to cities like Shanghai, Guangzhou and Beijing, via the land port. The train is expected to reach Laos's Vientiane South station on Dec 5.
Hence it is a fast mode of transport using HSR since if you use shippers, you have to wait for the ships to load and unload at various ports of call, the use of land transport after the goods are received, the time involved in the administrative paperwork etc.
A High speed train. Thanks to China’s BRI. I guess the USA is too focused on wars around the world. Video Check it out. 131MB
Debit Trap!!!!!
Yada. Yada. Yada.
Debit Trap.
From TC Khoo…
“The reality is that the US and 300 years of Western imperialism strives to control, oppress, and steal the resources of developing countries. A century later not much is changed and the millions living in developing countries [remain] trapped in a cycle of poverty and exploitation, through policies implemented by the IMF and the World Bank. The Euro-centric West over-looks the legacy of its ‘development policies’ which are the cause of half of humanity living below the poverty line. . While western aid agencies put out adverts asking money .. they omit the fact that Africa is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of natural resources and turned into a ‘begging bowl’ a result of West’s debt-traps and perpetual wars. . · The real DEBT TRAP – Paul Craig Roberts, author of The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism outlines how the west has looted third world countries and how IMF plays a lead role in this ..
“the gullible” governments are offered “foreign loans to implement a Western-presented development plan”
.. in reality the country becomes indebted .. Unable to pay back the loan, the creditors send in IMF to lend it money to pay its bank creditors. Now IMF is in a controlling position it will apply austerity measures cutting back public services, public pensions, and sell national resources to foreigners .. the exploitation doesn’t stop there, but rather the West pushes a “policy on Third World countries of abandoning food self-sufficiency and producing one or two crops for export earnings. This policy makes Third World populations dependent on food imports from the West. Thus, self-sufficiency is transformed into indebtedness”. . Such policies have hindered the development in third-world debt-ridden countries for decades. Nick Dearden Director of ‘Global Justice Now’ argues that even before “we had even heard of COVID-19″ the IMF warned that 34 countries were at risk of debt distress and this was a conservative estimate .. more than 60 countries cannot build a basic health system because the “world’s poorest countries are repaying vast sums year on year to rich countries, international “anti-poverty” funds – public bodies such as the IMF – and major banks is a damning indictment on our global economy.” . While the US propagates the debt-trap narrative, the biggest worry for the West is that China’s BRI offers a much-needed alternative for the global South. . Washington is not interested in facts that contradict their narrative, rather US officials and the vast media propaganda machine are continuing to repeat the debt-trap accusations with an aim to discredit BRI [but] there has never been a Western proposal for continental-scale infrastructure building … It was the Chinese who sought to build a road, rail and maritime infrastructure network to link Africa’s economies with the rest of the world”, with the debt trap allegations against China debunked again and again. . read more at – https://www.gwadarpro.pk/
Ecosystem
In 1960, David Latimer planted a tiny garden inside of a large glass bottle and sealed it shut. He opened the bottle 12 years later in 1972 to add some water and then sealed it for good. The self contained ecosystem has flourished for nearly 60 years.
For those who are wondering how this is even possible: the garden is a perfectly balanced and self-sufficient ecosystem. The bacteria in the compost eats the dead plants and breaks down the oxygen that is released by the plants, turning it into carbon dioxide, which is needed for photosynthesis. The bottle is essentially a microcosm of earth.
Miniature ecosystem.
In Tanzania…
The world moves on. Free of the worry of being bombed to oblivion by the United States.
From Dr. Tomor…
Have you seen a stone arch bridge being built? I was in Tanzania this week and saw several being built. I found top quality workmanship creating impressive bridges.
Bridge construction.
Where does the story begin? The Belgian Development Agency (#ENABEL) together with the Tanzania Rural and Urban Roads Agency (#TARURA) are building 70 stone bridges in small villages around Kigoma to help people get to markets.
Bridge construction.
This fascinating project, located deep in the Tanzanian countryside, has much to teach the developed world. For embracing decarbonisation, stone bridges offer an ultra low emission alternative to concrete and steel with minimal maintenance costs.
Bridge construction.
As digital technology is incorporated into stone construction there is a compelling case for reviving this incredibly long-lasting material.
Bridge construction.
People wondered about the HK-Macau Bridge…
“It’s impressive, but a big black hole to throw money into” says the jealous British reporter. It wasn’t even announced or reported on in the United States. But I can tell youse guys that it is really impressive, and it lands right at my doorstep. Literally. I go out of my back door, and there’s the road from the bridge!
But why was it built? For people to travel back and forth from HK to the Casinos?
The bridge to my doorstep.
Now we know. China wants to turn Macau from a casino den into a tech base for the Greater Bay Area.
When I first read this, I had a little giggle in my head.
Wait a moment …
I realized how much I judge a thing based on a commonly held belief or opinion. Vegas is the most sinful place while Sedona Arizona is the most spiritual place.
Is that true?
Or is that based on the experience of a person carrying out certain activities in that place?
Can you be spiritual in Vegas? Absolutely yes if you want to.
Is there a totally “bad” or “good” place on earth? Or is it just our experience or our perception of that place being “bad” or “good”?
To take this to another level, is democracy absolutely good and authoritarian absolutely bad? Is freedom totally good and control totally bad?
Good and bad ideologies have been instilled in the minds of people so that we can fight to be right and fight to “survive”, the lowest level of human consciousness.
What if we can go beyond the “survival” to the plane of co-creation?
Chinese government’s intervention in economics and businesses is much larger than what one is used to in the west. But that’s just how it is. China is much larger than anything that the West can possibly comprehend.
Is it totally bad? Or is it just the perception of being bad because it’s not consistent with what one expects in the west based on the beliefs and values where one is raised.
Now back to the topic of Macau …
Half of Macau’s GDP comes from casino revenue. Gambling represents 80% of the government’s tax revenue. An 80 per cent drop in gambling revenue last year led to a 50 per cent decline in GDP.
In Beijing’s plan, Macau is being encouraged to develop integrated circuits, new energy projects, and artificial intelligence (AI), among other tech sectors, and to establish a supply chain for chips, from design to testing.
For China’s tech firms, the city is also proving a testing ground for new products and solutions. Tencent, Huawei and SenseTime are all involved in the city’s digitalization and smart city projects.
Lu Gang, director of the Macao Technology General Association, said …
“Although it’s small in size, Macau is an international platform connecting the mainland to the world and can help Chinese companies venture abroad.”
Transforming a city from a casino den to a tech innovation base is quite a huge effort, but China thinks long term. No wonder Zhuhai, and the Guangzhou corridor is literally on a building spree and all those skyscrapers are everywhere.
And of course, the CIA tried to stop all this…
The CIA / NED embeds in Hong Kong tried all sorts of things to top the Chinese construction in the Bay area… this is from 2011. WWF is a NED front organization.
Coronavirus in Shanghai
From Joe Z… 6DEC21
Yesterday 4pm, one family of this city found Covid positive (after 20 months of zero case), as the man was traveling back from Shanghai.
8am this morning, 50 testing sites are ready in that suburb, 40k+ people will be tested quickly, 100+ medical workers are mobilized, people are informed via phones and medias, schools are temporarily closed for 1 day.
Everyone is busy doing their part to minimize the impact and wants to get back to normal as soon as possible.
Western media can call that whatever they want: human rights violation, brainwashing, communism, no freedom, collectivism, overreacting, whatever accusation that can express their hatred.
We who live here care more about our health and work. We respect our medical workers and volunteers.
Hater's opinion is irrelevant to us.
China and Africa
From Sebastian Ibold…
Africa-#China cooperation and trade deepened in recent years.
In particular the "Forum on China-#Africa Cooperation" (#FOCAC), a tri-annual forum between China and African countries, is a platform for the alignment of cooperation and development goals of the Sino-African strategic partnership.
A week ago, the 8th edition of the FOCAC, the 2021 summit, was held from 29 to 30 November in Dakar bringing together foreign ministers and high-level attendees from African countries, the African Union and China (first summit held in 2006 in Beijing).
The 2021 summit adopted 4 resolutions: 1. Dakar Action Plan (2022–24), 2. China-Africa Cooperation Vision 2035, 3. Sino-African Declaration on Climate Change and 4. Declaration of the Eighth Ministerial Conference of FOCAC.
In particular the China-Africa Cooperation Vision 2035 is of strategic importance. According to the first 3-year plan of the vision, China will:
send 1,500 medical personnel and public health experts and provide 1 billion doses of #COVID19 vaccines to Africa.
⚒undertake 10 poverty reduction and agricultural projects and send 500 agricultural experts to Africa.
import goods worth EUR 247 billion over the next 3 years (in recent years, bilateral trade stood at about EUR 165 billion per year, with China's imports from and exports to Africa each reaching about EUR 80 billion).
provide EUR 8 billion of trade financing to support African export, provide credit facilities of EUR 8 billion to African financial institutions, channel to African countries EUR 8 billion from its share of the IMF’s new allocation of Special Drawing Rights and encourage Chinese businesses to invest no less than EUR 8 billion in Africa in the next 3 years.
exempt African LDCs from debt incurred in the form of interest-free Chinese government loans due by the end of 2021.
establish a platform for China-Africa private investment promotion and support the development of African SMEs (indicating a shift from traditional infrastructure and construction investment-focus to a more local development approach)
establish a China-Africa cross-border RMB center.
undertake 10 digital economy projects in Africa.
undertake 10 green development, environmental protection and climate action projects for Africa ("actively promote solar, wind and other sources of renewable energy, work for effective implementation of the Paris Agreement on climate change and keep strengthening our capacity for sustainable development").
build in Africa "centers of excellence on low-carbon development and climate change adaptation".
encourage Chinese companies in Africa to create at least 800,000 jobs in Africa.
undertake 10 peace and security projects for Africa.
Side fact: One of the commonly used world maps, the Mercator Projection, depicts Greenland and Africa as being roughly the same size. In reality, Africa with 30 million sqkm is 14 times larger (see last graphic, true size of countries)
In Japan: “Bread & Roses: Pandemic Drives Women into “Nighttime Work””
SNA (Tokyo) — On November 16, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government announced the disciplinary dismissal of a 28-year-old school nurse for moonlighting as a sex worker for more than a year.
Tokyo officials interrogated her after receiving an anonymous tip about her after-hours work. The primary and middle school nurse said she wanted to save enough money to live on her own in the city. The officials used the word menshoku (removal/dismissal from office) rather than kaiko (dismissal from employment) since she was a local government civil servant.
Japanese labor law grants employers the right to dismiss an employee (kaikoken), but that right cannot be abused (ranyo). In reality, you need a damn good reason (goriteki-katsu shakaiteki sotosei ga aru = reasonable and sufficient according to social norms) to fire somebody. The hurdle for disciplinary dismissal is even higher, requiring malicious behavior that causes considerable damage to the workplace with little prospect for recovery from the loss of “confidence” (shinrai).
The media has kept mum about the details of this case, but we can suss out quite a bit. The available information does not make it obvious whether she was fired for having a second job or for the nature of that second job. Local government civil servants cannot, in principle (though with exceptions), work side gigs without prior approval, according to the Local Public Service Act.
A violation can lead to a disciplinary dismissal, according to a strict reading of Article 38. And yet, countless incidents injurious to others, including teachers driving without a license, driving under the influence, groping on public trains (chikan), and lewd acts with students, do not lead to disciplinary dismissals. Most of those cases lead to lighter punishments, such as three-months forced leave or pay cuts. This school nurse injured nobody, yet she was hit with the ultimate employment penalty.
It’s easy to imagine that the reason for the differential treatment lay in the nature of her side gig. Very few sex workers in our society feel confident enough to declare their occupation openly. The dismissal perhaps relates to the fact that the job of teacher (which includes school nurse in Japan) is often called a “sacred profession” (seishoku) and is held up as a model occupation for the children they teach. The Tokyo government likely feared an adverse impact on children’s education and demands from angry parents for the immediate firing of a teacher who also works at a sex establishment.
However, the reaction on social media to this case has been overwhelmingly sympathetic to the school nurse. The following quotes encapsulate many comments I have found in my research.
—Personally, I feel a disciplinary removal from office is too severe. It means she loses her teaching license. She surely had financial reasons for doing this, and I cannot accept that her mistake was so grave. Her next job hunt will be a nightmare. I worry about her future.
—Disciplinary dismissal just for having a side gig? It’s a victimless crime. Even if it was a sex establishment, it’s odd for her to be dismissed like this just for having another job.
Such expressions of sympathy and solidarity reflect the desperate impoverishment of women during this pandemic. The word yorushoku (nightwork) is increasingly common in Japan to refer to sex workers, in distinction to hirushoku (daytime work), such as administrative or sales work.
Even in pre-Covid times, women earned less than men and had far more precarious jobs. The pandemic has aggravated this situation, leading to many women being fired, having their contracts non-renewed, or losing work and income on zero-hour contracts. This has driven many women into yorushoku, and some even to working both day and night with little time to sleep.
In the past, the nighttime profession was considered a separate world inhabited only by professionals and experts–a world hard to enter and one that filled office workers with fear and trepidation. But the pandemic has robbed women of jobs, devastated their personal incomes, and aggravated the gender gap, as the Japan Research Institute reported this past April. Female suicides have jumped since the start of the pandemic, totaling 7,026 in 2020, according to the National Police Agency.
Although we don’t know the life circumstances of this particular school nurse, it’s not hard to imagine she suffered serious financial hardship. Public perception considers local government servants to enjoy secure employment throughout their careers. But a skyrocketing number of people work in public education on one-year part-time contracts. Her previous situation may have been precarious indeed.
It should be noted that yorushoku covers a broad range of sex work, from more hardcore services that include penetration to more softcore work such as drinking and chatting with customers at a hostess bar. Pay grows the more hardcore the work is–to a level higher than desk workers can imagine. It’s easy to understand why some women suffering financial hardship are being drawn to such high-paid work, when so few other opportunities are available to them.
The popularity of the word yorushoku has itself to some degree normalized this kind of work, enabling advertisers and recruiters to lower the psychological hurdle that many women feel about doing such work and drawing them in with the high pay.
But why are conditions for day jobs so precarious and miserable in the first place, particularly for women? Normalizing nighttime work while ignoring the issue of lousy daytime jobs misses the point. On top of that, sex work entails many risks, as well as the possibility for major mental and physical harm.
Why did the school nurse feel compelled to work at a sex establishment? This is a question for all workers living in Japanese society.
I concur 100% with the Japan Communist Party’s pledge to create a society in which people work eight hours a day and live a life worthy of a human being. It’s time the government reformed its labor policy to ensure that for all workers, regardless of gender.
For breaking news, follow on Twitter @ShingetsuNews
China creates its own democracy instead of duplicating Western models: white paper
Xinhua | Updated: 2021-12-04 12:08
BEIJING – China did not duplicate Western models of democracy, but created its own, according to a white paper released Saturday.
Titled “China: Democracy That Works,” the white paper was released by the State Council Information Office.
The original aspiration of China’s democracy was to ensure the people’s status as masters of the country, said the white paper.
China has created and developed whole-process people’s democracy in line with its national conditions. This is a form of democracy with distinctive Chinese features which at the same time reflects humanity’s universal desire for democracy, said the white paper.
Whole-process people’s democracy has fueled the development of the country and driven the revitalization of the nation. It has contributed a new model to the international political spectrum, said the white paper.
China must devise the most suitable form of democracy in accordance with its characteristics and realities. This is a basic principle China adheres to for developing democracy, said the white paper.
To develop its democracy, China has always drawn wisdom and strength from its 5,000-year-old culture and fine traditions, said the white paper.
Humanity’s quest for and experiments with greater democracy will never end, it said.
The true barrier to democracy lies not in different models of democracy, but in arrogance, prejudice and hostility towards other countries’ attempts to explore their own paths to democracy, and in assumed superiority and the determination to impose one’s own model of democracy on others, it added.
The World is changing
You can plainly see this on the polls that reflect the thoughts and belief of American workers.
Local Innovation
The owner of this electric car has done something that no electric car manufacturer has ever done.
Auto-recharging.
I’ve always wondered why these machines aren’t designed for the energy that generates wheels to charge the car’s batteries.
This guy did it at home.
What you see in the frame is the current-generating generator that charges the batteries.
There is no longer a need to stop to charge batteries at charging stations or to charge them at home at night.
The machine charges the batteries while it’s running.
It’s as simple as that..
The Saker
This article is a reprint from a great article found on The Saker. I edited it for clarity, simplicity, and to fit this venue. All credit to the author. It is well worth the read as it describes the need for the USA to “ok, so die already”. Any American will be well familiar to the ideas, concepts and situations as described herein.
Despite the running assumption in Washington for some time that democratic backslides are linked to perceived adversaries such as Russia and China, the data actually seems to point back to the United States itself.
Of all places, the news of this democratic decline was recently reported in the New York Times. According to data from V-Dem, the US and its allies (defined as countries with a formal or implied mutual defense commitment) have accounted for only 5% of worldwide increases in democracy in the 2010s while having 36% of the decreases.
In fact, it states, US-allied countries saw their democracies decline by nearly double the rate of non-allies.
This obviously raises the question: why?
Answering this is quite a tall order for even the most astute political scientists, but it’s obviously not as simple as blaming Trump. Let’s look at some of the possible reasons.
First of all, contrary to a long-running assumption, American influence does not actually lead to countries wanting to be like America. A Pew Research Center study from November 1 found that only 17% of people in their survey countries viewed US democracy as worth emulating, against 23% who said it was never a good example. Why is this?
Well, US democracy sucks.
If democracy means that public opinion is supposed to decide policies, then the US is an abject failure.
Public opinion actually means next to nothing, considering the US is a functioning plutocracy – a government of, by, and for the wealthy.
- Mirna Miranda
The author kind of goes off the “deep end” offering his opinions on race and social differences, and I personally found that repugnant. Never the less, he does have some good points and I tried to mediate his work so not to be offensive to the MM readership and myself. Part of accepting change is to listen to the opinions of others. I do hope that you enjoy this.
When you live in a 200-year-old house, you would do well to give it a thorough inspection every few years. Rap on the walls, pull down some old wallpaper, climb into the attic, and get down into the crawl space. Check the roofing, check the exterior walls, check the foundation. You are looking for signs of rot: decay, mold, insects, rodents, or just plain aging.
With luck, you find one or two small problems, you patch them up, and all is well.
Unfortunately, sometimes all is not well. Sometimes, you find signs of major and irreparable decay. In those cases, and as painful as it may be, you must be prepared to tear the house down and start anew. Anything less would be a lost cause, an act of utter futility.
America today.
America today is a 245-year-old house—a grand mansion with many rooms, situated on a wonderfully vast and glorious estate.
From the outside, from a distance, it still looks nice: glitzy, glamorous, wealthy, powerful, exciting. It still carries much from its well-intentioned (if flawed) beginnings.
But our inspection proves otherwise. When we rap on the walls, or get up in the ceiling, or crawl down to the foundations, we are shocked to find signs of widespread and irreparable decay.
The main timbers supporting the building are rife with termites; the roof is leaking; the foundation is cracked, the sands beneath are eroding, and all manner of vermin are running wild, both above and below.
In short, it is a horrible mess.
We try to plaster over holes here and there, and slap on some new paint once in a while, but the rot inevitably shows through. By any reasonable accounting, the building is on the verge of collapse. It may come down on its own, or we can be proactive and take it down, but down it will come.
America is starting to fall apart and crumble down.
Any viable nation is not only an edifice; it is a living entity.
It lives and breathes with the people in it. Our house is a living house; but sadly, it is terminally ill.
A combination of old age, disease, neglect, and poor hygiene have put it in a terrible state, one that is evidently beyond any hope of recovery or repair. The house must come down; America must die—in order for a new house, a new nation, to arise.
Such is life.
An Inspection Report on the USA “House”
It is worthwhile, then, to review my brief ‘inspection report’ of the American nation, and to diagnose the ailments that we are currently enduring.
If I am able to get down to root causes, this will naturally lead to some prescribed courses of action that we can take, both near-term and for the longer haul.
No one wants to live in a rotting house.
No one wants to live in a decaying nation. No one wants their children and grandchildren to grow up in such conditions.
We have better options.
At the highest level, my inspection report finds two major, and related, areas of concern: (1) a false notion of human equality, and (2) misplaced faith in the doctrine of democracy.
Further analysis shows that these two aspects have been ruthlessly and malevolently exploited by a potent selfish lobby to maximize benefit to themselves.
In what follows, I will attempt to outline the nature of this far-reaching and deep-rooted crisis, and to suggest some ways forward.
The False and Destructive Concept of “Equality”
In 1927, and four years before he penned Brave New World, famed writer, thinker, and “casual anti-Semite” Aldous Huxley published a compelling little book called Proper Studies.
It opens with an essay titled “The Idea of Equality.”
The very first line reads as follows:
That all men are equal is a proposition to which, at ordinary times, no sane human being has ever given his assent. (p.1)
Doctors, editors, bureaucrats—any person, in any walk of life, displays evident and obvious inequalities, says Huxley.
People are different in every way imaginable: skills, abilities, interests, intelligence, appearance, character.
Everyone acknowledges this, and yet at the same time they also want to insist on the essential and intrinsic equality of humans.
Hence does Huxley write of the human mind’s “almost infinite capacity for being inconsistent.”
He then describes the basic axiom at work:
Politicians and political philosophers have often talked about the equality of man as though it were a necessary and unavoidable idea, an idea which human beings must believe in, just as they must, from the very nature of their physical and mental constitution, believe in such notions as weight, heat, and light.
Man is “by nature free, equal, and independent,” says Locke,[1] with the calm assurance of one who knows he cannot be contradicted.
It would be possible to quote literally thousands of similar pronouncements. (p.2)
He identifies the original source of this fallacy in Aristotle, whose metaphysical assumption of a human essence (as “the rational animal”; Nicomachean Ethics I.8, 13) implies a sort of equality among the human species.
Against Huxley, we can argue that this does not quite follow; the existence of a common and distinctive quality of all humans need not imply their social, political, or existential equality, any more than the fact that all material objects have mass imply that they all have the same weight.[2]
Huxley also fixes some blame on Descartes, but again, this is perhaps an exaggerated claim.
In Discourse on Method (1637), Descartes writes:
Good sense is the best distributed thing in the world. …
It indicates that the power of judging well and of distinguishing the true from the false—which is what we properly call ‘good sense’ or ‘reason’—is naturally equal in all men. … [A]s regards reason or sense, since it is the only thing that makes us men and distinguishes us from the beasts, I am inclined to believe that it exists whole and complete in each of us.[3]
Even if we allow that reason is equal in all—a highly dubious assertion, to say the least—it still does not imply political, social, or moral equality.
More to the point, Huxley cites Christian doctrine and the position of the Church.
Even granting a “brotherhood of men” under Christ, “the brotherhood of men does not imply their equality.”
He continues:
“Neither does men’s equality before God imply their equality as among themselves.”
Even if God, from his divine and lofty standpoint, views us all as equals, any putative inter-human equality “is entirely irrelevant”.[4] It is rather like us viewing all ants or mice as identical when in fact they all recognize and acknowledge vast differences among themselves.
All this bodes ill for the “religion of democracy,” says Huxley (and as I will elaborate).
Its “primary assumption” is that “all men are substantially equal.” If the equality falls, so too falls democracy.
A most profound observation, worthy of repeating. "Democracy" is ONLY valid and a just form of governance, when everyone one is equal in ability, thought, social standing, and contribution.
Otherwise, "democracy" is a failure.
-MM
He summarizes concisely:
The historical and psychological researches of the past century have rendered the theory which lies behind the practice of modern democracy entirely untenable. Reason is not the same in all men; human beings belong to a variety of psychological types separated from one another by irreducible differences. (p. 12)
Science, anthropology, philosophy, and common sense all come to the same conclusion: human equality is a fallacy, and any political ideology based on that notion is doomed to failure.
Huxley, of course, was hardly alone in his condemnation of a claimed human equality.
Nietzsche viewed the idea with greater contempt and wrote in more scathing terms.
We find, especially in Beyond Good and Evil, a stunning repudiation of the concept.
His elaborations on the “order of rank” among men, the “instinct for rank,” the “noble soul,” and the necessity for human greatness, pervade the work.
A few examples will have to suffice:
Men, not noble enough to see the abysmally different order of rank, the chasm of rank, between man and man—such men have so far held sway over the fate of Europe, with their “equal before God,” until finally a smaller, almost ridiculous type, a herd animal, something eager to please, sickly, and mediocre has been bred, the European of today. (sec. 62)The highest and strongest drives, when they break out passionately and drive the individual far above the average and the flats of the herd conscience, wreck the self-confidence of the community, its faith in itself, and it is as if its spine snapped. Hence just these drives are branded and slandered most. High and independent spirituality, the will to stand alone, even a powerful reason are experienced as dangers; everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the neighbor is henceforth called evil; and the fair, modest, submissive, conforming mentality, the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors. (sec. 201)Every enhancement of the type ‘man’ has so far been the work of an aristocratic society—a society that believes in the long ladder of an order of rank and differences in value between man and man. (sec. 257)
The concept of equality is ultimately destructive because it declares, not only that no one is worse than anyone else, but more importantly that no one is better than anyone else—yes, that no one can be better.
True self-betterment and self-enhancement become impossible if we are all equal.
No matter what you do, you will still be only, and always, equal to the very least among men.
This doctrine is not merely false; it is utterly contemptible and destructive of higher aims and goals.
It means the death of humanity. Where we do not ascend, we decline; this is Nietzsche’s basic outlook.
Sadly, it conforms to the actual world in which we live today.
In the final passage above, Nietzsche points to a central fact and thus to a possible solution.
If every improvement to humanity and to society has occurred in aristocratic societies—that is, rule by the best—then we ought logically to use those as our model.
Societies that are capable of sorting men into lesser and greater types, and to do so effectively, are the drivers of human evolution.
They strive for greatness, and they create greatness.
Even the smallest steps in that direction—such as were taken by Hitler in his National Socialist Germany—would be such an improvement over the present day that any nation even attempting it would likely flourish spectacularly; and in fact, this is precisely what happened in Germany, beginning in 1933.
The rest of the equality-obsessed, oligarch-inspired world was so aghast that they were compelled to drive the remaining industrial nations against Hitler and to destroy him, so fearsome was the prospect of his success.
Still, entrenched myths die hard.
We in the US have our treasured Declaration of Independence, which declares as “self-evident”—with the calm assurance of those who know they cannot be contradicted—that “all men are created equal.”
As we know, this was disingenuous at best.
For one, they indeed meant ‘men,’ given that women could neither vote nor hold office.
And they meant ‘White men,’ given that all the Founders were White Anglo-Saxons, and many were slaveholders or otherwise endorsed slavery.
Hence that famous phrase really meant “all White males are created equal”—though even that is demonstrably untrue, as I have argued.
Original Democracy
Huxley had it exactly right: support for modern democracy is in fact more of a belief system, or even a faith, than something grounded in history, reason, and philosophy.
Like many other religions, democracy derives from a core of historical truth—here, in ancient Greece—that was then altered beyond recognition by an accretion of layers of myth, lie, and corruption.
Today we have the belief, the faith, by all sides, “left” and “right” alike,[5] that democracy is an unquestioned virtue, that it must be defended at all costs, and that it must be spread to the world, even at the point of a gun.
This is a fundamental political error, founded on an erroneous and detrimental conception of human equality; it must be overcome if we are to survive in the long run.
Democracy wasn’t always a religion.
At one time, at the beginning, it was a rational and effective (though not unproblematic) means of self-government.
Let’s take a minute to examine the original democracy of ancient Greece to see what worked and what did not.
The original democracy of ancient Greece
Athenian democracy was a remarkable institution, and remarkably different than what passes for democracy today.
To begin with, the population of the state (or polis) was small—it constituted only some 300,000 people at its peak, which included many slaves and foreigners.
By modern standards, this seems tiny but, for the time, it was extremely large.
Of this number, the only formal citizens were the adult native-born males, numbering perhaps 30,000, or just 10 percent of the population.
These citizens—the demos, the people—were the formal basis of political power, rather than some ruling wealthy elite (also known as oligarchs or plutocrats), or some tyrannical dictator, as could be found in other Greek states.
The democratic system, inaugurated by Cleisthenes around 500 BC, functioned in a very different way than we might expect.
For one, there were no elections; all leadership positions (apart from the military) were chosen by lot, at random, from among the citizens who had put forth their names.
This included even the leader of the Assembly—the collected body of citizens—who was effectively the president of the nation, though without much formal power.
The Greeks had invented a device called a kleroterion into which names were randomly inserted on small tokens; colored dice were then deployed to select names randomly and fairly from among the various tribes or families.
The system had several virtues: immediate results, no costly or corrupted election campaigns, fairness, transparency, and an equal involvement of all concerned.
The Greeks clearly had to be nice to all their fellow (Athenian male) citizens, any one of whom could someday have a position of prominence.
Secondly, there were no representatives.
Athens was a famously direct democracy.
All interested citizens gathered on a large open hilltop, called the Pnyx, roughly once per month, to listen to the issues of the day.
When the time came for decisions, a very public show of hands determined the outcome.
Even the gravest of matters, such as going to war, were decided this way.
This is all the more striking when we consider that the army was composed of the very men who had themselves just voted for war.
In other words, when you voted for war, you personally went to war.
And many never returned.
We can only imagine a similar situation in America today: that the Congressmen and women who support the next illegal and unjust foreign war[6] would be compelled to be on the first combat plane into the warzone. I suspect that we would have very few wars indeed.
I would love to see Mike Pompeo and Tom Cotton try to invade China. It would be a hoot. -MM
In sum, Athenian democracy was small, direct, accountable, and transparent.
The wealthy elite had very little power to steer events in their favor.
The citizenry comprised only native men; foreigners had literally no voice in the state, even though they outnumbered the actual citizens by a factor of two or three.
Greek democracy was thus a racial (White European), ethnic (Athenian), and gendered (men only) system of rule.
And it worked incredibly well; it produced and sustained the brilliant Athenian culture that we know today.
Two Famous Critics
For all that, the system had some harsh and prominent critics—notably, Plato and Aristotle.
Plato had two main complaints against democracy:
Voting
Voting. First, he asked, why should all the citizens get to vote on key decisions? Why are they all treated as equals, one vote per man? This is illogical and counterproductive. Even in Athens, they had their share of dunces, dimwits, and degenerates. Why let these men vote? Why not let only the best, the wisest, vote? For that matter, why have votes at all? Why not just determine who are your wisest few, and let them rule?
This was Plato’s vision of an aristocracy, the optimal form of government. It is, at least in theory, far superior to anything like a democracy.
Freedom
Freedom. Plato’s second concern was, ironically, with freedom itself. In a democracy, since “the people” rule, anything goes. Whatever the people want, the people get. And the people—the masses—rarely want the kinds of things that they should want, namely, virtue and discipline. Rather, they want to have fun: they want to do one thing one day, and something else the next, as it suits their fancy. They are ‘free,’ after all. They want to play games, engage in various petty amusements, fill their bellies, get drunk, and so on. As it was then, so it is now; human nature has scarcely changed in two millennia.
Plato is scalding in his attack. The “democratic man” is inundated by all manner of trivial and detrimental desires. True and deep thoughts are driven from his soul, and “false and boastful conceits and phrases mount upwards and take their place” (Republic Bk 8; 560c):
And so the young man returns to the country of the [pleasure-seeking] lotus-eaters, and takes up his dwelling there in the face of all men. …
There is a battle and [the false and boastful words] gain the day, and then modesty, which they call ‘silliness’, is ignominiously thrust into exile by them, and temperance, which they nickname ‘unmanliness’, is trampled in the mire and cast forth.
They persuade men that moderation and frugal spending are vulgarity and meanness, and so, by the help of a rabble of evil appetites, they drive them out.And when they have emptied and swept clean the soul of him who is now in their power and who is being initiated by them in great mysteries, the next thing is to bring back to their house insolence and anarchy and waste and impudence in bright array, having garlands on their heads, and a great company with them, hymning their praises and calling them by sweet names.
Arrogance they term ‘good-breeding’, and anarchy ‘freedom’, and waste ‘magnificence’, and impudence ‘courage’.
And so the young man passes out of his original nature, which was trained in the school of necessity, into the freedom and libertinism of useless and unnecessary pleasures. (560d-e)
And if wiser thoughts come calling, and if they struggle for predominance in his soul, he becomes confused; “he shakes his head and says that they are all alike, and that one is as good as another.”
He has lost the ability to judge and to discriminate, which degrades his entire life:
His life has neither law nor order; and this distracted existence he terms ‘joy’ and ‘bliss’ and ‘freedom’; and so he goes on… [H]e is all ‘freedom’ and ‘equality.’
Hence the democratic man.
His precious freedom, given unrestrained license and lack of discipline, devolves into mindless and confused pleasure-seeking.
He believes he has freedom, and he believes in equality—but this is a sham; it is a false equality and the freedom of a shallow and vapid libertine.
Plato sums up the situation on democracy with one of the most striking sentences in the Republic:
These and other kindred characteristics are proper to democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike. (558c)
“Charming” and “disordered” democracy, so “fair and spangled,” is all show and no substance.
It encourages undisciplined, unvirtuous lives of hedonistic pleasure.
And most importantly, it “dispenses a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike.”
Such a democracy, he says, can only lead in turn to the lowest form of government, tyranny.
I haven’t the space to elaborate, but in short, Aristotle basically agreed with this analysis.
He identified three primary forms of government, each of which had good and bad versions.
In descending order, the three good systems are monarchy (rule by one), aristocracy (rule by a small and wise few), and a ‘constitution’ (conditional rule by many).
The distorted or bad forms of each of these are tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy.[7]
In this sense, for Aristotle, democracy is literally ‘the worst of the worst.’ It is rule by the poor and needy masses, not the best or noblest few.
Industrial Democracy
What, then, of democracy in the world today?
We have variations on the democratic theme that are so remote from the Athenian original that they hardly deserve the same name.
They have lost all the virtues of the original but retained all the vices.
Democracy today has devolved into a crude perversion that I like to call industrial democracy.
Its primary characteristics are these:
1) Representative (parliamentarian) system—no direct participation. 2) Universal suffrage—all adults can vote. 3) Multiracial—all races can vote. 4) Unlimited population size. 5) Financially corrupt—moneyed interests hold great sway.
On every point, this is opposed to the Athenian model.
We vote, but typically only for a handful of pre-determined candidates or on a very limited number of referenda.
Our representation is scaled down by a factor of thousands or millions; a state as large as California, with almost 40 million people, gets all of two senators.[8] And every half-witted, uneducated ignoramus gets his or her vote—people who vastly outnumber the educated and the wise. (And we wonder why the intellectual level of political campaigns is so low.)
People of every balkanized race can vote, and they often do so in their own racial interest, thus guaranteeing a divided and conflicted government.
Perhaps most critically, the original small size of the Athenian citizen body, some 30,000 individuals, now numbers almost 250 million—the number of eligible American adults.
The vast size and scale of representation ensures that billions of corrupting dollars flow through the system, distorting even the most virtuous lawmaker, and guaranteeing a flood of media confusion, propaganda, and “fake news.”
Industrial democracy is rule by money: those with the most money, and the will to spend it, rule.
In America, we know who leads this race: the oligarch lobby, which contributes at least 50% of Democratic campaign funds and at least 25% of Republican funds.
Wealthy American oligarchs spend literally hundreds of millions on campaigns, ads, donations, and various other activities, all to influence the outcome in their favored direction.[9]
The situation is comparable in the UK, Canada, France, and Australia, all of which have relatively large and wealthy oligarch populations.[10]
The ancient Greeks—most of them, at least—would be appalled to see what their cherished democracy has come to.
As it is, we now have that which Plato predicted: democracy on the brink of degenerating into tyranny of various forms.
We have tyrannies of the rich, tyrannies of the oligarchy, and tyrannies of Big Tech, all vying for power, and all cooperating as needed to ensure that nothing like transparent and accountable government ever comes to pass.
The main objective of the rich is to stay rich.
As well as to maintain or grow the wealth gap between themselves and the masses; the larger the disparity, the more relative power they hold.
The main objective of the power-elite, is to weaken and damage the national psyche sufficiently.
As well as to diversify and deplete the nation genetically, so that they can maintain maximum control without completely destroying the wealth-producing capacity of the economy.
Under industrial democracy, the future is grim indeed.
America, sadly, has been completely subsumed by this pernicious and insidious form of government.
The country is ruled by the lowest, most depraved, most incompetent individuals imaginable.
At the same time, it is being flooded by the virtual scum of humanity—in July 2021 alone, over 212,000 arrests (“encounters”, in the government’s euphemistic propaganda) occurred at the southern border.[11]
How many more evaded “encounter” and entered the country illegally, we do not know.
And to these numbers we must add the “legal” immigration of large numbers of non-European, non-educated individuals who inevitably change the character of the nation seemingly for the worse.
The combined effect is dramatic.
A recent study stated that the US now has an astonishing 44 million people who were foreign-born, of which about 75% are legal and 25% are illegal.[12]
Nearly half of these millions were born in just five countries: Mexico, China, India, Philippines, and El Salvador.
Surely not more than a percent or two of these 44 million are from wealthy, educated nations. The grand edifice that is America is collapsing as we speak.
Therefore, it is time to accept reality and give up America for lost.
Put away your flags, your pins, and all your red-white-and-blue paraphernalia.
Toss out your MAGA hats; America will never be “great again.”
Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar or a fool.
The country is rotting from above and below.
Vermin are calling the shots from on high, and human detritus washes in over the borders.
This was precisely how Ancient Rome fell. Such is the terminal stage of many an empire.
Looking Ahead
If this report on the fatal condition of America is close to the mark, it also suggests corrective actions that must be taken to regain a sane and stable civic life.
Well, at least for the historical Americans who established and ran the country for most of its existence.
The necessary actions are hardly a secret.
The basic ideas are already floating around the Internet. Andrew Anglin, for one, was right on the mark in his recent essay on immigration. His conclusion:
The only way we are going to fix this [immigration] problem is through a two-fold solution: 1) Redrawing the borders of the country, and 2) Physically removing tens of millions of people. There is no situation where both of those things are not going to be necessary in the future.
Those are two necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for the restoration of rational government among the population today.
More specifically, my above analysis suggests the following steps:
(a) Break up the existing United States into smaller, more cohesive, more homogenous, and more manageable units.
I do NOT suggest a return to the geographic borders of the individual states, but rather upon social clusters of similar interests, society, and unity. -MM
(b) In these new units, encourage all non-assimulated individuals to emigrate as soon as possible.
(c) Discard the pernicious concept of human equality and replace it by a celebration of the higher, the nobler, and the best.
(d)Replace industrial democracy with something like an aristocracy.
Closure
Let me close by offering a few words of elaboration on each.
More and more people these days seem to be recognizing the desirability and the inevitability of secession of portions of the US, and the establishment of new, independent nation-states.
In fact, as the nation continues to disintegrate, at some point people will have no choice; thus, it is better to plan now than to wait for some chaotic future breakdown.
Some of the current talk on secession has the right intent but is woefully weak and misguided.
Breaking up existing states but staying within America is a wholly insufficient form of secession.
The “6 Californias” idea is very weak; “Greater Idaho” is well-intentioned but falls way short of the mark.
None of these explicitly advocates breaking away from the US and forming new nations. Only full-blown secession can hope to get to the root of the problem. The reigning oligarchy knows this, which is why they do everything in their power to discredit the idea.
Point (b) is mandatory for restoring effective and rational governance.
Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Jews, Europeans all have countries of origin; they need to return there with all due haste.
Far-fetched, and irrational, but I allow him to rant on. -MM
After a short period of voluntary compliance, increasing pressure will need to be applied until they comply.
Yes, Europeans could theoretically return to Europe, except that Europeans created and built up the present civilization (such as it is) of the USA, and thus have earned a right to stay and to evict the interlopers.[14]
Native Americans were of course here before the White Europeans, and that precedence needs to be respected, such as via truly autonomous homelands.
And since Blacks were forcibly brought here from Africa [15], I would have no issue with assisting their return to Africa with subsidized travel arrangements, a small one-time cash payment, or with the use of political leverage in Africa to aid their repatriation.
We can ease the transition, but out they all must go.
The hardest to deal with will of course be the oligarchy of every race. With their political clout, wealth, and bull-headed tenacity, they will be very hard to root out.
The task is made all the more difficult because of the inability of our supposedly “conservative Right” to address this in a meaningful way.
Most all prominent rightwing individuals and organizations flee from the Question like the devil from holy water.
As I have noted elsewhere, Fox News and crew—Carlson, Hannity, et al—never explicitly mention the oligarchy, never out them, and never criticize them in any way; Hannity in fact bends over backward to curry favor.
Alex Jones never criticizes or outs any of the oligarchy. Same with Jared Taylor. American Renaissance won’t deal with them in a serious way. Breitbart at least discusses them, but always in a neutral or positive light.
The real critics are, sadly, few and far between; to reiterate what I wrote recently, we need to be extremely grateful for The Occidental Observer, Unz.com, National Vanguard, and people like Anglin, all of whom are willing to speak the hard truth on the history and control of these long-duration oligarchs that run the United States..
Point (c) obviously follows from the above discussion. We must drop all talk of human equality and replace it with a promotion and celebration of human uniqueness and human greatness. This needs to be made explicit in common discourse, media, and school curricula.
We need to celebrate and praise human genius while emphasizing the fact that most people are not geniuses and will never achieve greatness, but who can nonetheless have meaningful and valuable lives.
When it is understood that humans never were, and never will be, equal, then all become free to achieve their full potential and, for those who succeed in bettering themselves, to reap the rewards of exceptional development.
In a just society, exceptional individuals will earn additional rights, but they will also bear additional duties, compared to the lesser. “Equal” performance for the various subgroups of people—as distinguished by gender, age, socio-economic status, ethnicity, etc.—will never be expected or mandated. “Racial equality” will be a nonissue.
Industrial Democracy must die
On the final point, it is clear that the hopelessly corrupt industrial democracy must go.
We can also be confident that something like an aristocracy would be a vast (if imperfect) improvement, even as there is much leeway in the specific details.
If we allow that “rule by the wiser” is superior to “rule by the masses,” then we have many ways to realize such a system.
At the simplest level, we could retain elections for officeholders but permit only the wiser—smarter, more educated, more accomplished—individuals to vote.
It could be very basic: require that voters earn a college degree, for example; or score above average on an IQ test; or distinguish themselves in some other relevant way (an exceptional athlete, by contrast, earns no right to a voice on political issues).
The disenfranchised would not be made to feel inferior; rather, they would come to accept such a system as in the best interests of all.
The Chinese have adopted this system and the successes of China are amazing. You can read about how the Chinese has adopted this system HERE.
-MM
At a more sophisticated level, we might move to adopt something like a Platonic education system, as laid out in the Republic.
There he sketches a 50-year training program involving age-appropriate schooling, skills training, physical fitness, and practical experience that both educates the masses and serves as a filtering process to determine who the truly wisest and most capable leaders are.
Again, The Chinese have adopted this system and the successes of China are amazing. You can read about how the Chinese has adopted this system HERE.
-MM
A series of pass-fail criteria progressively reduce the pool of eligible candidates, leaving, at the end, a mere handful of individuals who have repeatedly proven themselves under pressure. In a future aristocracy, a small pool of “the best” could be added annually to a kind of ruling congress who would then be unconditionally empowered to make and enforce all laws and policies.
After a fixed term of governance, each individual would be compelled to retire in turn. Again, this is just one way of realizing such a system.
Variations might include finding ways to identify and empower the truly exceptional individuals—or perhaps a single individual—and give them correspondingly exceptional powers to rule.
In any case, the system would need to be recognized by the vast majority of people as an effective and desirable solution. In this sense, it would retain a small flavor of traditional democracy. “Consent of the governed” can work, as long as the population is not too large and as long as we do not have to contend with competing racial minorities or Jewish financial corruption. But such consent is a far cry from universal suffrage or rule by the masses, which can never work, and which always degenerates.
Such is my basic outline of a path forward. Obviously, much more needs to be said. But it is a start, one that addresses the root causes of our present crisis.[16]
Final Thoughts
I close with this thought: To the extent that America ever was great, this is because, at the start, it was roughly modeled on the Athenian original.
The early American government was gendered, racial, and ethnic European males of a predominantly north European stock.
The celebrated American “diversity” at the beginning was a diversity among Whites: English, Scots, Irish, Dutch, Germans, and Scandinavians all would have been represented in those early years.
Yes, America had significant numbers of Blacks and Jews from the 1600s, but they had limited or no political influence.
Religion was of secondary importance.
Yes, it was nominally a “Christian nation” at the start, but few among the Founders were deeply religious—Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, and John Jay being the exceptions—and most were skeptical believers or deists, if not functional atheists.
Hence, early America prospered and flourished in spite of, not because of, Christianity; in spite of, not because of, Blacks and Jews; and in spite of, not because of, the principle of equality.
Blacks, Asians, Jews, “equality,” and Christianity were millstones around the young nation’s neck. It is a testament to our initially gendered and racial governance that we accomplished so much in those early years, with such huge burdens to bear.
Two centuries later, those millstones proved to be our ruination.
America is dying a slow and painful death. Let us euthanize the long-suffering nation, redraw the boundaries, rethink the guiding principles, and begin again.
Final MM Comments
Obviously I edited out the distasteful elements and sanitized the article for general distribution. People in echo chambers forget how they often appear to others who lie outside that echo chamber.
.
There is no need to bring race, or ethnic DNA points of origination in an article about changes in governance, but they are one and the same in this author’s mind. I cannot extract those thoughts without destroying the beneficial points being presented.
.
Personally, I do not care who the oligarchy is, what race they are, where they originally came from, or what food they eat for breakfast. All I care about is removing them from any areas of control, in any way, from MY life. Thus the point in this article. I hope that you all enjoyed it.
Mr. Deng said it best. “I don’t care what color the cat is. All I care about is whether or not it can catch mice.”
Now about China
From an email…
Today, wokeism has killed education in the West, particularly America. There is zero chance for a reversal and even if by some miracle it was reversed, the ship has sailed. Too late to play catch up.
A phrased I particularly remember was "In America it would be a miracle if I could fill a hall with young PhD engineers but in China, it would be very easy to fill a stadium with the same".
At this transition period of global supremacy, I would still advice students from third world country to study a Bachelor degree in the West (UK, Europe, maybe Australia) but afterwards, to study post graduate in China. Some Post graduate degrees in China can be in English but it's still best to have rudimentary spoken Mandarin to get around while studying in China. Have seen Western students who actually are studying Post Graduate degree in Mandarin, which requires a proficiency in both written and spoken Mandarin. Hats off to them.
As I've mentioned to Guy From Africa, learn Mandarin. It will be the future language of business. It won't be the sole language of science and technology but will be on paper with English in the future.
Anglo-Saxons Americans, Brits, Australian find it astonishing that other people are bi lingual, where they can't begin to fathom the usefulness of another language besides English (a by product of the arrogance of British Empire). Europeans in general are bi lingual. South East Asians are bi, tri, tetra or even penta lingual (at the very least bi lingual but tri lingual is especially common. A friend of mine is penta lingual, yes, 5 languages.) To be able to communicate is key & speaking more than 1 language is advantageous.
Anyways, the below opinion piece in WSJ is interesting, to say the least.
As a Chinese doctoral student raising a young son in the U.S., I am mystified by how American elementary schools coddle students. In China, schools are run like boot camps. What do the therapeutic comforts America showers on its youth portend for a growing competition with China? video 6MB
.
.
I recently registered my son in the third grade at a New Jersey public school. Hattie had recently finished two years of elementary school in Chengdu, China, where he trotted off to school each day with a backpack stuffed with thick textbooks and materials for practices and quizzes. .
.
Here he leaves for school with little in his backpack other than a required “healthy snack.” The first day he came home with a sheet of math homework: 35 addition problems. He finished in about a minute. On the second day, he was asked to write 328 in different configurations.
.
He first wrote down 300+20+8, following the prompt, and then 164×2, 82×4 and 656÷2. My son is not a genius, but he started studying math at an early age. When he was 5, I taught him fractions.
.
Two years later, I introduced him to algebra. It is a core belief in Chinese society that talent can be trained, so schools should be tough on children. Chinese students score at the top of international math and science tests. This is not a philosophy shared by American schools.
.
On Friday night my son came home announcing in bewilderment that he didn’t have any homework. In China students tend to receive twice as much homework on the weekend, given the two days to complete it. Video 25MB
.
.
How will America compete with a China determined to train the best mathematicians, scientists and engineers? Unfolding now are two Maoist cultural revolutions, one in the East and the other in the West. The former is a jingoistic nationalism enforced by party loyalties and ubiquitous secret police.
.
The latter is an anti-Americanism enforced by progressive mobs seeking to defund the police. Both are about limiting expression, controlling thought and regulating behavior. Xi Jinping has been cracking down on everything from finance to entertainment to whip his country through a “national rejuvenation.”
.
China’s nationalism is explicitly anchored in Maoism, with Mr. Xi representing the new cult of personality. Meanwhile, woke America—which, consciously or not, deploys Maoist tactics—is destroying the core traditions of Western civilization with identity politics.
.
In both countries, control must extend to the very young to mold them in the image of the official ideology. In fall 2021 Chinese pupils returned to school with a new requirement to study “Xi Jinping Thought.” Schools must “plant the seeds of loving the party, the country, and socialism in young hearts,” a government announcement declares.
.
Across the ocean, American pupils are taught that white America is inherently racist, regardless of individual intention or action. Chinese education pushes the young in directions that serve the party and the state. Youth are trained to be skilled laborers ready to endure hard work and brutal competition.
.
Such political indoctrination is taught side by side with math and science. American education is supposed to be about opening minds but appears not to fill them with much.
.
Worse, young Americans are not prepared for the demands of being an adult. This phenomenon started in higher education. For years attending American universities, I have been disturbed to watch colleges fabricate “anxiety” and “depression” in students who are not mentally ill. Administrators have used grossly exaggerated terms such as “trauma,” and melodramatic expressions such as “I cannot begin to imagine what you have suffered,” to turn into a catastrophe what is best described as disappointment.
.
This creates a culture of victimization. The absurdity peaked after the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Students from elite universities claimed existential despair, finding comfort in cocoa, coloring books and therapy dogs.
.
Classes were canceled and exams postponed, all in the name of soothing 20-somethings who need to be learning how to adapt to reality as adults. Chinese citizens enjoy mocking the Western “snowflakes.”
.
Less amusing is what this trend means for the U.S. as China no longer hides its enmity for America.
.
Ms. Zhang is a doctoral student in political science.
.
And don’t be so sure that all China makes is cheap plastic toys…
China tested a hypersonic vehicle in July that was able to fire off its own missile over the South China Sea while traveling at five times the speed of sound, in a physics-defying display of technology that no other country has demonstrated, according to a new report.
.
The Financial Times on Sunday revealed fresh details of Beijing’s hypersonic weapons test earlier this year, which saw a nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicle circle the globe in low orbit before landing.United States intelligence officials were reportedly alarmed by the test as it demonstrated a brand-new weapons capability that government scientists were struggling to understand, with one source earlier telling the newspaper the achievement appeared “to defy the laws of physics”.
Yeah. It’s something that the frenzied media mouthpiece never talks about.
China follows “whole-process people’s democracy”, which is based on a deeper understanding of democracy. China’s socialist whole-process people’s democracy can be understood as “from the people, to the people, with the people, for the people”.
Whole-process people’s democracy covers the whole process of election, decision-making, management and supervision, in order to meet people’s needs and solve people’s real problems. Only such a democracy can be real democracy.
Different from Western-style democracy, China practices real democracy, because it believes the “people are the masters of the country”.
In the West, people with little or no political experience can become national leaders by winning an election.
In contrast, Chinese leaders at all levels must have the experience of working at the grassroots level to be eligible for selection through many elections before becoming high-level officials.
“…However, yes, there’s definitely the problem of a mistake/miscalculation being made–that’s why the Russian’s have emphasized so much and often that any missile launch from a known dual-use launcher will be treated as if it’s a nuclear warhead, and have pleaded with the Outlaw US Empire/NATO not to emplace such launchers that close to Russia’s borders or in Europe/Asia at all.
Russia is far more rational in its analysis of a post-nuclear war future–Who wants to live in a future without Russia.
IMO, the world can be absolutely certain that if Russia or China–possibly even Iran–is attacked directly by the Outlaw US Empire/NATO or one of its surrogates, most of North America, all of Europe, and any place any Western Oligarch might attempt to hide will be utterly devastated, while those poor souls remaining will deal with the ensuing Nuclear Winter.”
Finally,
Whether or not the USA is sinking should not matter to you. What SHOULD matter is what you do with your life, right here, and right now. I say “Be the Rufus”. We do not know when the calling will come.
However, when it calls, you must take action. It will not make you wealthy, rich, famous, or attractive. But, it will make a difference when you are judged upon death. Be the Rufus. Make a difference. Help others. It’s our highest calling.
.
What? You might ask. And to that I will give examples of other people. People who are just like you who act as a Rufus in times of need. Dogs, as great as they are, sometimes need help. The smarter dogs know that trying to cross a street is dangerous. So what are they going to do? Well, good thing that there is a Rufus near by to help. Video
Notes
[1]Second Treatise on Civil Government (1690), chapter 8, section 95.
[2] And in fact, Aristotle’s later discussion of the “great-souled man” (Nicomachean Ethics IV.3) demonstrates conclusively that he believed in vast difference among men.
[3]The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, volume one, Cambridge University Press (1985), pp. 111-112.
[4] Indeed, explicit human equality exists nowhere in the Bible. Paul claims in Galatians (3:28) that “there is neither Jew nor Greek” under Jesus and that “we are all one in Christ Jesus.” But this only says that all are welcome into his nascent universalist church; it does not support the idea that all are equal. And more importantly, there are very good reasons for believing that Paul held to the most obnoxious form of Jewish supremacism, and thus did not believe in human equality in the least; see my essays “Christianity: The great Jewish hoax” and “Nietzsche and the origins of Christianity.”
[5] Though, as I have recently argued in “The problem with leftism,” both the Left and the Right are “fakes,” which explains why they both adhere to similar nonsense, and why they both supplicate to the Jewish Lobby.
[6] Actually, in America we don’t have wars anymore; we have “authorized uses of military force” or AUMFs. This is Congress’ cowardly way to kill others on behalf of their lobbyists and patrons without having to vote for an actual war.
[11] Of course, not all illegal immigrants are scum. But from everything we know, a very high proportion of them are from the lowest, least intelligent, and most criminal segments of humanity. And since virtually all of them are non-White, even the best will alter the nature of our traditionally White society.
[12] Though the actual number of illegals could be much higher than the presumed 11 million. One recent study argued that the true figure could be as high as 29 million.
[14] Yes, Black African slaves and Chinese coolies “built” portions of the early US. But they provided only the low-end brute labor, not the organizational or intellectual basis for the nation. To give them credit for building America would be akin to giving credit to the oxen and draft horses of the early pioneers.
[16] Elsewhere I have argued that Hitler’s National Socialism can also be a model going forward. His nationalism created an ethnic-based sense of unity and purpose that far exceeded mindless patriotism, and his socialism served as an antidote to unrestrained finance capitalism. There are many good lessons to be learned there. Interested readers should start with my recent edition of Mein Kampf, and with my newly-reworked edition of Alfred Rosenberg’s classic, The Myth of the 20th Century.
[17] Black males were granted the right to vote in 1866, and women (of all races) in 1920.
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.
You know, the anti-China media hysteria has reached new lows and levels of insanity that is truly difficult to fathom.
I mean, who in their right mind would believe this nonsense? Wait for it?
…Dumbed down Western media consumers.
I do tire of all the “War with China over Taiwan is imminent” bullshit.
It’s not.
Unfortunately, the Republicans are equally locked into an adversarial mode when it comes to Russia and China. Ex-UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, is now calling for economic war against Beijing. Some might conclude that everything in contemporary Washington comes down to a latter-day opera buffa in which an assortment of comic characters parade for a moment only to be replaced by the next bumbler sporting an equally ridiculous message.Russia aside, witness the recent wave of China bashing, begun by Barack Obama with his pivot to Asia, continued under Donald Trump with his China virus rants, and endorsed by Joe Biden’s team which persists in labeling Beijing as enemy number one.
No one steps back and considers even for a moment that the US is China’s largest market and that the US in turn relies on Chinese manufactured products to fill its Walmarts.
(Not true. The USA represents only 2% of Chinese exports. It was 11% in 2019 when COVID hit. The largest export market for Chinese products is Japan. Please get your info correct. -MM)
If ever two nations had good reasons not to go to war, it would be China and the United States, yet the US desire to confront the “Red Menace” to include defending Taiwan continues to drive policy.
-UNZ
Here’s another post that you simply will not find anywhere else on the Internet. American “news” has become a sewer of noise, horrible lies and distortions. And, you know, it’s going to get people killed. I tire of it all. To understand what is really going on you need to study the issues, and then you look for what is not being reported and stay alert for distractions.
I’ll drink to that.
A time for wine.
Anyways, a long story (made) short; I received an email from my brother who was petrified that World War III was going to explode “any minute” and that I had to flee China immediately.
Well, I wrote about this in another post HERE, and I told him that I was going to stay in China. After all, it is the safest location on the planet.
Anyways, my brother is so very convinced that Taiwan is it’s own singular nation and that it is in need of defending by America for “democracy”. And that because of the “evil regime” in China, and the “gross overreach”, and “saber rattling” of the horrible communists, that a war is soon to explode.
China is a “democracy” for Pete’s sake! (Head slap!)
Pretty strange for a certified “tax protestor”, who had his passport seized by Uncle Sam to talk about “freedom” and “liberty” when he himself is restricted in travel due to not having a vaccination. But then again, that’s the USA for you.
All talk, no substance. Or, as we used to say in Texas; “All hat. No cattle”.
Well, this bullshit about Taiwan being an “independent” nation is simply not true, and I am going to explain why.
What is the relationship between Taiwan and China?
History need not be difficult to understand, but you do need to know the basics. Here’s my simplistic abridged version. And YES, I do know that I have omitted a lot of details…
History is actually interesting.
Between 1945 and 1949, China experienced a massive civil war. It was more massive than the American Civil War, and many, many people died.
Eventually, towards the Fall of 1949, the Communists under Mao Zedong won the war. They set up their capital in Beijing, and on 1 October 1949 declared the establishment of the People’s Republic of China.
The losers; the “Chinese Nationalists” fled the Chinese mainland.
They looted all the museums, and using lorries, trucks, and other conveyances hauled their booty to the coasts where they loaded them on boats. The major staging area was in the Xiamen coastal region. As the laden boats began to depart, the communists began shelling the vessels and so the retreating rebels landed on the island of Taiwan and fortified themselves in.
They had no where else to go. They spent years fighting the Japanese, and they couldn’t go there. Korea was too risky, as the Chinese communists had well secured that area, and heading south towards the South China Sea was the only remaining option.
So they hunkered down, and fortified their positions and made Taiwan their base of resistance to the Chinese mainland. Since that time, these rebels have declared themselves to be the “true” heir to the Chinese nation, and they have enlisted help from the United States to conduct “color revolutions” and other black operations in an attempt to regain their power back.
This effort continues to this day.
Over the last 70 years
The rebels in Taiwan, with all the looted gold and valuables, left the mainland destitute, poor and agrarian.
In the tiny Taiwan island, they used their money to construct huge enormous palaces for themselves and their families, and then used the rest of the loot to set up business as factories that would cater to the West.
And they were successful.
Over the decades “Made in Taiwan” dominated much of the world’s manufacturing concerns.
While mainland China had to work hard, step by step to become the economic powerhouse that it is today. They went from sub-zero to the very top and the very best.
It only took them 70 years.
Today, we see an eclipsing of economic power between Taiwan and China, and the oligarchy that rules Taiwan is literally scared shitless.
For the wrath of China will not be kind to them.
So they have been funding, in terms of billions of dollars, the American Senate, and American neocons, to get American intervention regarding mainland China. And the greedy, psychopathic American leadership are just lapping it all up. Yum!
The Hate China narrative, paid for by Taiwanese billionaires.
Many things has occurred over the last 70 years, but one thing is certain, China will once again be unified as one nation. Both Taiwan, and mainland China expect it.
Is Taiwan and China separate nations?
No.
China says that they are the same nation.
Taiwan says that they are the same nation.
The United Nations (UN) says that they are the same nation.
All Taiwanese citizens have Chinese residency. This is something that the American media NEVER reports.
The only nation that doesn’t accept the one-China solution is the United States. Which is thanks to the many billions of dollars that the Taiwanese billionaires have been throwing at Washington DC over the last few decades.
Now the current ruling “political party” in Taiwan is pushing for a “two nation” solution, and want the United States to force this situation into being.
Which, you know, seems to be a severe death wish, and delusions of dying in a full scale nuclear holocaust.
Haven’t they seen what America looks like today?
I guess not. It’s “exceptional” don’t you know!
Size Comparisons
I shouldn’t need to do this, but since most Americans are dumbed down to the knowledge of a retarded snail, I am afraid that I have to speak in pre-school terms to get the message across.
Since, China and the United States are roughly the same size. You can compare how big Taiwan is relatively. Taiwan is roughly the size of Rhode Island comparatively.
Size of Rhode Island shown on a map of the United States.
In case you don’t believe me, here’s a map of China. Taiwan is pretty small.
Map of China showing Taiwan.
Taiwan is a tiny, tiny island that sits right off the coast of China. It has been part of China for thousands of years, and still is recognized as part of China. And all the millions of dollars in saying otherwise will not change that fact.
Why is Taiwan important to the United States?
According to all the literature on the subject, all American battle plans against China originate from a fortified staging area inside of Taiwan.
American war-mongering neocon “wet dream” plan on “containing” China.
Thus it is critically important for the United States to place enormous quantities of war and military munitions and equipment on Taiwan in preparation for a landing inside of China.
Obviously this is myopic, short sighted and stupid.
China would have Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and Houston in radioactive ruins long before the first landing wave touches the shoreline. And if you think that China will allow Taiwan to have active American military bases there, you are delusional.
Crazy.
Idiotic.
Insanely delusional. Foolhardy idiotic.
Mind-numbingly stupid.
A handful of technical advisors is one thing, but a full scale military presence is a war-move.
WAR
INSTIGATOR
But I have covered all the actual and real reasons why all the fuss is over Taiwan right now. It’s the billionaire oligarchy inside of Taiwan that want something done. And they are in a state of panic.
Well, if you listen to the bullshit blaring American media microphone, war is imminent. But you know, that’s just a song for the Americans to dance to. Hype up war. Create a context and then strike preemptively on some kind of false-flag bullshit excuse.
It’s the American way, don’t you know.
Provoke China to fight. And then America “plays China like a fiddle”.
Will China attack Taiwan?
It can.
It certainly has the ability. But it won’t. China is far smarter than that. It will do so if the “red lines” are crossed. They are not crossed, so China will do nothing.
Countercurrents against peaceful reunification must be curbed. General Secretary Xi Jinping stated categorically that nothing can change the fact that people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese with the same national identity, and nothing can stop the trend toward reunification of the Chinese nation.
Taiwan independence goes against this unstoppable trend and will eventually be crushed by the wheels of history.
Chinese must not fight against Chinese, and for this purpose we have made the greatest efforts for peaceful reunification with the utmost sincerity.
However, we do not renounce the use of force, and we reserve the option of taking all necessary measures to prepare for possible interference by external forces and separatist activities by a handful of "Taiwan independence" separatists.
Such measures would certainly not be targeted at the people of Taiwan.
-QStheory
Another video of some of the Chinese military systems. video.
Oh, and by the way, China is decades ahead of the USA in laser beam weapon systems
I’ll bet you didn’t know that. Well, you know, any real good things about China are suppressed. You probably think that all of China is polluted, filthy full of bat eating, floor spitting, tiny brown people riding bikes, huh? video.
There’s a lot of things in play right now. And I am going to do you all a favor and simplify things for you all.
An overview of China Military
Well, since no one is going to do this, I will. There’s a two minute overview of just how formidable the Chinese military is right now. It’s a great little short video, and if you are still thinking that China can be attacked, or that China is just some bunch of untrained peasants with AK47 clones, you are sadly, and dangerously mistaken. The PLA will attack and be very, very nasty about it. You haven’t seen shit yet. DO NOT POKE THE PANDA. video.
And what China can do to Taiwan, right now!
Just a reminder on how close Taiwan is to the mainland. Just in case you didn’t get that fact while listening to CNN, FOX “news” or the Drudge Report. Check out what China can do to Taiwan right now. video. This can happen from inside of mainland China to the tiny, tiny island of Taiwan.
Watch the video.
Learn a thing or two.
Because China can do what is shown on this video without even putting a foot on the ground. China just pressed a button, and all of Taiwan is on fire. Watch and Learn. video.
What to expect… the nightmare scenario.
This is what would happen if the billionaires get their way…
Russia and China are tired of the buildup to war, and preemptively strike America with a bone-crushing nuclear salvo, while simultaneously destroying all naval carrier groups, boomer subs, and major Naval bases. Additionally, Australia suffers massive destruction, as does Japan and Korea.
Massive, in that the top ten cities of Japan, and Australia are all radioactive rubble.
American command centers are all black blank screens all comms are down. Satellites malfunction, or fall out of orbit. Alt communication goes black.
The ass-kissing diversity officers, and the trans-gen military leadership start freaking out in the command bunkers and they desperately try to warn the American leadership to fly to safety, but before they can pick up a cellphone, they themselves are gone in a shooch! of bright light and dust.
The largest city surviving is Picayune Louisiana.
But, you know it's tough, as they are trying to cope with a massive flood of armed, ethnic-urban-youth, radioactive refugees streaming out from the blackened remains of smoldering New Orleans. Big thick oily black clouds fill the air with soot.
The United States government collapses. It's not hard. Long in coming. But with Washington DC a water filled crater, I mean, what are you gonna do?
All American supply lines completely collapse. Hordes of hungry starving urban ethnic youth stream into the suburbs. They raid the "McMansions", the small towns, and the communities, and they take over all of the highways and transport routes. Oh, sure there's a few "freedom patriots" that shoot back.
Not many.
It's "every man for himself".
Many die, overwhelmed by the millions of angry, hungry, pissed off hordes. People who hate. Hate. Hate. HATE.
Balkanized battles are common. White people are hung screaming and crying from the top of McDonald's "golden arches" signs. Asians are tied to chairs inside of Starbucks and set on fire. Mexicans are attacked, but they shoot back, and the "good ol' boys" try to hop into their trucks to join the fray, but they are immobilized as an EMP burst fried all automotive electronics.
The first major storm of Winter hits.
All the homes freeze as there isn't any heat, and all the pipe crack and break as CPVC isn't as strong as cast iron. To make matters worse, they needed secondary booster shots of the mRNA Vaxx are not available. People start dying of the common cold. Many nine year olds die from heart attacks.
A sniffle becomes the mark of the plague.
Starvation, sickness, gunshot wounds, and poor sanitary conditions prevail.
The most frustrated transgens start to freak out as their hormones start altering, and their sex-change medicine is no longer available to them. They become enraged angry maniacs and the cities become true horror scenes.
In the midst of all this turmoil, the second American civil war starts. Texas, and California break away to become their own nations. Others follow.
Virginia organizes.
Armed enclaves set up in Georgia.
Mississippi monitors all road traffic with lethal consequence. Many a dead person sways in the breeze.
Snipers slow all movement in the desert to a standstill.
And you have all those guns in the hands of all those civilians shooting everyone. Organized State armies, using all those fancy tanks and high tech weapons developed by the military-industrial union turn on the people and serve their own needs. National guard patrol the major cities, but are overwhelmed by organized armed rebellion.
Killings, rapes, torture, and looting are commonplace.
The interim federal government in exile flies to New Zealand and tries to coordinate control over the collapsed United States out of a survivalist bunker, but is unsuccessful. They try to coordinate but are unsuccessful. They too start to worry as their own supplies of drugs and sustaining medication are quickly being depleted.
Eventually, they surrender, and the United States is carved up into tiny, tiny fiefdoms.
The rest of the world moves on.
America? What's an america?
North America is listed as a quarantine zone, and is isolated from the rest of the world. Millions die. The survivors become hardier, but no longer speak English. The Southern "new" nations speak Spanish, and the rest have their own various regional accents. With ghetto ubonics betting the most common.
Most white, Asian, and Spanish Americans north of the Mason-Dixon line are killed in mass.
Fifty years later, some of those fiefdoms are recognized as independent countries and are permitted to attend the UN meetings in "observer" status.
Pretty nasty, huh?
You bet.
I hope that I frightened you. It’s not a pretty sight. I think we have to be reminded that the things that we do have consequences, and we must always hope for the best, but plan for the worst.
What’s more than likely is this…
In Taiwan, a number of the hard-core separatist nationalists start dying off of old age, coronavirus, and car accidents.
Rapprochements by the traditionalist factions inside of Taiwan and the Chinese mainland government come to a workable solution for reunification.
The United States military is kicked out of Taiwan, as all the USA weapons systems that they have (billions and billions of dollars worth) are boxed up and shipped off to Iran as a "good will" gesture.
The Iranians welcome the many shipments of high end fighter jets, missiles, and equipment.
The United States has a fit. News media screams! And the rest of the world continue as if nothing has happened.
A new American election looms on the horizon.
The candidates scream to do "something" about China, and the dumbed down apathetic sheeple go eat their McFat burgers and slurp their mega-Coka sodas.
All continues in the land of the dumb, fat, and ignorant.
Anyways, keep in mind that what you see on the “news” is for regional consumption. The rest of the world doesn’t really care.
Remember. China has friends.
Something that is somehow omitted in all the hate – hate – hate dialog flooding the media. China has friends, and the “West” is increasingly becoming more and more isolated every day.
China has friends.
Do you want more?
You can find more articles related to this in my latest index; A New Beginning 2. And in it are elements of the old, some elements regarding the transition, and some elements that look towards the future.
Important note: Image above is NOT of the USS Connecticut. It is of the USS San Francisco that rammed into an undersea mountain in 2005.
Let’s get right to the point.
The official American story is that the USS Connecticut rammed into an unmarked undersea mountain.
Since the Navy revealed this week that the fast-attack submarine Connecticut struck an undersea mountain in early October while operating in the South China Sea, one question springs to mind: how could this happen?How could a $3 billion Seawolf-class boat, considered one of the Navy’s most formidable and advanced, crash into an undersea landmass?-NavyTimes
Which is pretty strange as the locations of all undersea mountains has been well mapped for decades. You can see them on Google Earth for goodness sakes!
Bathymetric map of the South China sea.
It’s a very questionable conclusion.
And you know, what makes it even more questionable is that the United States navy has been flying their radiation detection aircraft all over where the USS Connecticut was running operations. Which is abnormal.
Radiation detection aircraft flight path…
Searching for something.
But then if you couple the United States silence to the Chinese inquiries as to whether or not nuclear payloads, equipment, and fissionable materials entered Chinese waters.
There are absolutely zero answers from the United States government to very serious questions asked by China.
The official Chinese story is something else. Here we will tell the Chinese side of the story.
Believe it or not. It’s up to you.
Here’s another post that you simply will not find anywhere else on the Internet. And, you know, I tire of my own sluggishness in trying to understand the great failure of the American “free media”.
Even I realize that there is no such thing as actual “news” in the West, but really guys it’s not too FUCKING DIFFICULT.
Beware of any “news” that you WANT to believe.
Look for what IS NOT being reported in the mainstream or conservative media.
Take particular note when the official narrative is absurd.
Be especially cautious of “seeded“ narratives that you get in emails, or in alternative websites.
That being said, let’s dive in…
The Seawolf class overview
Seawolf
From my email 17NOV21
I had a little message from one of my friends regarding the Connecticut incident. FYI, it seems the following message was approved by Beijing so I will just tack it on here.
.
It has been translated from Chinese, with some clarifications to the machine translations by MM.
…
The Chinese military authorizes the disclosure of the truth about the accident of the Seawolf class nuclear submarine on the USS Connecticut.
16 November 2021
How the Chinese People’s Liberation Army hunted and sunk the (state of the art) USS Connecticut Seawolf-class attack nuclear submarine in the South China Sea.
-October 2-
The British aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth, the American aircraft carrier Nimitz, the American aircraft carrier Roosevelt, and the Japanese aircraft carrier Izumo entered Chinese waters. It dis so with 17 other warships. They hailed from the United States, Britain, Japan, the Netherlands, Canada and Australia. This 4 aircraft carrier armada represented the Western power of six nations.
.
The South China Sea armada begins to conduct large-scale military exercises against China. This was done off the Chinese coast and within Chinese territorial waters.
.
Trying to push China into a war.
-October 2 to 4-
The People’s Liberation Army dispatched a large number of military aircraft to the South China Sea to conduct simulated attack exercises against these uninvited warships.
.
The armada came from six countries. they were the United States, Britain, Japan, Holland, Canada and Australia. These nations all participated in conducting simulated invasions, attacks, and destruction of China, the Chinese nation, and Chinese sea lanes.
.
Chinese J-20 aircraft.
-October 2-
China’s Guanlan Marine Science Guard observed the approximate position and depth of the USS Connnecticut Seawolf class nuclear submarine when it entered the South China Sea.
.
It followed it as it approached the South China Sea, and conducted operations South of Taiwan. It then observed it creep up the coast and operated near the Chinese shoreline and conduct surreptitious and illegal operations (inside of Chinese territorial waters as defined by the UN) of an unknown nature.
.
The Guanlan satellite sent the data to the Super Measurement Center in Jinan to estimate the position of the Connecticut.
.
Guanlan satellite.
-China’s special detection device captured the ultra-low frequency sonar from the bow of the Connecticut spherical boat and transmitted the data to the Sonar Analysis Center in Shanghai to accurately locate the position and depth of the Connecticut. It was operating at 1500 meters [?] making and conducting obvious operations and drills inside of the Chinese coastline.
-The Type 927 underwater acoustic detection ship stationed on Yongshou Island and the anti-submarine helicopter stationed on Yongxing Island are dispatched for detection.
.
Type 927 underwater acoustic detection ship.
-The Yun-8 military plane took off from the Hainan Air Force Base and carried out a “sonic bomb” on the Connecticut.
.
This technology (a “sonic bomb”) causes the submarine’s personnel to be extremely uncomfortable due to the sonic shock. It does not injure or kill anyone. It simply makes all their pain receptors ignite on their bodies.
I am told it feels like being burned alive while frenzied hordes of cocaine-addicted rats gnaw at your eyes, gonads and fingers. And insects borrow deep inside your skin, biting, chewing and clawing all over your body. -MM
.
This terror and discomfort forced the submarine to try to escape from the targeting cone of effect.
.
Yun-8 military plane.
-While it was trying to exit the cone of effect, the AI controlled robotic Chinese HSU001 unmanned submarine slipped silently to the nuclear submarine Connecticut. Where it attached itself to the bow of the ship.
.
This was an intentional placement. This locations was as far away as possible from the nuclear power plant for a close local directed-explosion attack.
.
It was then ignited, and ended up causing serious damage to the bow of the boat and a complete loss of sonar sensing ability.
Translation confusion. I do not know if it placed weapons charges, or if the entire robot detonated itself. -MM
.
The navigation capabilities and the nuclear power plants were not affected, preventing nuclear leaks from polluting the fishing waters off the Chinese coast.
.
Chinese HSU001 unmanned submarine.
-The Connecticut nuclear submarine, which lost its underwater submarine capability, was forced to float up and surrender. The Chinese military forced the submarine to float up and surrender.
.
As the submarine broke the surface, it was met with Chinese PLA Naval vessels who took no overt action.
.
Due to the close surveillance of the navy and air force of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, the military aircraft and ships from the six countries of the United States, Japan, Britain, Australia, Holland, and Canada dared not come to rescue the submarine during the South China Sea exercise.
.
If the Allied American force were to engage, world war III would become a reality.
.
The submarine was “escorted” by the Chinese Navy and Air Force while in the South China Sea and the submarine was directed to follow the ships to docking facilities on the Chinese mainland.
Translation misunderstanding. It is unknown if the damaged submarine was actually escorted by the Naval Vessels, or if it then immediately submerged when given the opportunity. -MM
.
Where it then again submerged. Further contact with the submarine was then lost.
-October 7th-
The United States announced the Connecticut accident by the United States.
-October 7-
The Chinese Foreign Ministry frantically questioned the ins and outs of the USS Connecticut incident to the Biden administration, but did not obtain any answers or explanations.
-October 22-
The Chinese monitoring system detected a US nuclear submarine entering the South China Sea again near Huangyan Island.
.
Damaged submarine surfaces.
A final update by the source
The PLAN would be messing around with USN at this point.
1500 meter depth misinfo probably planted deliberately to taunt them because if the Drone sub did find the Connecticut, they definitely knew the actual depth it was running.
From the questions subsequently posed by the Chinese, it does seem they knew there was no nuclear leak.
China is playing around but It's like a cat with a mouse it caught.
The whole thing has Donald Cook vibes. Morale can't be good atm.
Added youtu.be link. You might like. https://youtu.be/VeJLwUfLcEU.
These pictures are all over the internet and I snagged one for use here.
Unfortunately the damage to the seawolf is not well photographed anywhere that I could find. Obviously the damage is a secure matter and the USN will not disseminate any pictures of it. Which is exactly what you would do to prevent an enemy from ascertaining knowledge on how effective their weapons systems were against you.
You do not do that with undersea mountain collisions. As the hundreds of USN released photos attest to. In previous mountain collisions, the USN was quick in the dissemination of information.
All photos depicting “combat damage” are classified as secret.
All photos depicting “accidental damage” are classified as “confidential” and released as the USN permits.
By all indications the damage to the seawolf is much more substantive than what everyone is led to believe. It is far more extensive than the collision damage indicated in the article featured image photo above.
Bow of a seawolf…
Bow of a seawolf class submarine.
A Los Angeles submarine bow…
The bow of a Los Angeles submarine bow.
This is the only photo that I have been able to obtain on the actual submarine in drydock and the damage involved. This is from THE DRIVE.
You can clearly see that the entire bow of the submarine is GONE. This fact alone shows that the damage is far more substantive than what is illustrated in the collision photo used as the header above.
Additionally, please note the orange ventilation tube, and the three access points where the tubes pump air into the front bow of the ship..
It appears that the entire front of the submarine forward of the conning tower is seeping water. And thus, needs to be pressurized to keep the water out.
This implies hull breaches at numerous points in the front one third of the submarine. This is NOT damage indicative of a forward collision. It is indicative of an explosion.
Seawolf sub in drydock.
From the photos it appears that the entire bow sonar array is GONE.
This is not a crushed impact. The array does not disintegrate upon collision. Some event completely eviscerated the entire front of the bow. Then punctured the hull in numerous points up to the conning tower.
Air is being pumped into the entire weapon storage and handling area aft of the forward navigation section.
Conclusions
Interesting version of events.
.
This certainly makes far more sense that “accidentally” hit an “unmarked mountain”. But whether or not it is actually true is unknown and will stay that way forever.
.
So, I do not know how true it is. We must always be aware of propaganda consisting of what we want to believe. The aspects of this particular narrative that makes sense is that it is in alignment with current Chinese technology and military doctrine.
.
What I DO KNOW, is that right after the damage to the submarine was ascertained, and the crew debriefed, a close family friend of ours who is “connected” with the USN at a high level chatted with my brother. (A man who had gone “X-ray” from me for the last year or so) And contacted me telling me to leave China immediately that there would be a massive dangerous war and he couldn’t help me. I wrote about this elsewhere.
.
This event train, along with the [1] quick rearming and [2] secret payload installation on numerous submarines at that time, fits well with this Chinese narrative. And not with the “crashed into a mountain” narrative.
.
That all being said, it is obvious that the Chinese do not want radioactive waters near the Chinese coast, so they only damaged the sub, not sunk it completely. For after all it is a nuclear sub carrying nuclear torpedoes. But we cannot expect this behavior and “safety rules” to continue with the pushing by the United States towards war. This is an aspect of war that I hadn’t thought about previously, but makes complete sense. This is why New Zealand absolutely refuses any nuclear vessels in and near it’s waters.
Yet nothing else about this incident is available anywhere. Very curious. Very, very curious. I presume there is video footage of the sub surfacing and it’s surrender. The PLA Navy seem to be toying around with the US navy like a cat would with a mouse. Seeing this video footage would greatly substantiate this narrative, but as in all things Chinese PLA, access and dissemination are tightly controlled.
It’s difficult for me to accept the American narrative that the submarine not only collided with an uncharted mountain, but that the Chinese just stood by and did nothing while a four aircraft carrier armada conducted missile drills simulating an attack on China. There are NO uncharted undersea mountains in the South China Sea. Hasn’t anyone watched the 1980’s Tom Clancy movie “Red October”? The entire ocean has been mapped.
It is also difficult for me to believe that the Chinese with all their advances and lead in military technology are thwarted by the American Navy. It just doesn’t stand up to the “sniff test”. At least not to us “technology wonks“. The Chinese have surpassed the United States military in a number of very new and novel technologies and the USA will take decades trying to counter them.
Overall, the Chinese seemed to intentionally want to disable the submarine, force it to surface, and then acquire it in a fully functional state. Whether this is for Geo-political purposes, or to reverse engineer it is unknown. My guess is the later, as they really don’t give a rat’s ass what anyone else thinks. When your reputation is shit, who cares if someone says something bad about you.
True or not, you can rest assured that this release of this information would have been war gamed and factored into the AI computations that will figure predominantly in the events of the future. The Chinese do not play around. They are a very serious nation, run on merit, and lead with capable leaders.
.
If the provocations continue, we can expect China to sink the submarines completely. The impression that I have is that they are “being gentle” at this moment in time. After all, they could have sunk the 3 billion 6 billion dollar nuclear submarine and killed the entire crew of 140 seamen. It is a top of the line, best of the best, American “prize” of the fleet. But they did not.
.
This particular Seawolf type of submarine is an offensive weapon that is designed to sneak into enemy waters, and destroy ships, shipping, and facilities. The fact that it was tracked inside Chinese territorial waters clearly indicated it’s intentions. Aside from a violation of the national sovereignty of China, it was a violation of the UN code of behaviors in the South China Sea. Sinking the ship off the Coast of China would prove to the world that the USA is a dangerous aggressor, but that would not matter, as World War III would have been ignited.
.
All in all, it took a remarkable amount of restraint not to completely sink the submarine and kill all the crew. The Chinese played this incident adroitly. They [1] demonstrated their abilities and capabilities for the world to see, and [2] showed that they have restraint. They [3] indicated that they desire peace and not war.
.
It is unfortunate that the United States cannot take these subtle hints at face value. The American government leadership tend to over-estimate their abilities, and severely under-estimate the abilities of their foes.
。
This was a warning. There will NOT be a second one.
.
Let’s see what happens next.
.
Given the idiots that run the United States today, I fully expect the United States government to “double down” and send their ships and submarines into harms way knowing full well that they risk the lives of all involved. I cannot see that it would matter inside the Washington DC beltway.
.
Interesting read never the less.
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.
This article addresses the disconnect from reality that many American readers of media seem to have regarding China. They are correct, a war is going to happen. the USA is at a fever pitch right now and very desirous of it. But what I say here is be VERY careful of what you wish for. You might not be able to handle the result.
Important note. To truly get the most out of this article, you MUST watch these short (15 second to 1 minute) video clips. Watch. Learn. Understand. Also note that a number of the videos are banned in the United States. So, maybe you might have to destroy your computer after watching the videos. LOL.
Ok. Brace yourself. I’m telling you all what you are dealing with, and what the real situation actually is. You can agree or disagree. Remember, knowledge is a tool. It is up to you to use it or not.
How this came about…
Today I received my second email from my brother. It was a sad and disturbing letter. Again, he pleaded for me to leave China and return back to the United States “where it will be safe”.
But you know, that is not going to happen. I love China.
I love everything about China, and I have family that I love. I have Chinese friends that I cherish and love dearly. I have homes, businesses, and a lifestyle that I am not going to leave. I love the culture in China. I love the food. I love the work relationships, and I even love stinky tofu.
Once you live in China and see (with your own experiences) how wonderful it is, you will never go back to the cesspool that the United States has become.
I am also retired. I no longer am involved in the world of black operations, top secret SAP programs, spooky stuff, and all that. I am retired. I retired to a calm place, a clean place; a good place. I retired to Mayberry RFD. If you would like to know what it is like here in China.
Never the less, all of the “news” out of the United States is war-war-war-war-WAR! and I have lived long enough inside of America to know what is next. It’s clear and plain as the nose on my face.
I’ve seen this all before. Not just as an American citizen reading the “news”, but also as one of those people who “make things happen”. I know precisely what is going on, and why.
So my email, from my brother, was disturbing. He knows who I am and what I did. Yet, he regurgitated the hate-narrative, pro-war narrative, when he should know better.
In it, he reiterated that I leave China. That it is not safe. And that the bellicose saber rattling, and hostile actions by the evil communists will be stopped by the incredible might of the massive American military forces. His words. Not mine.
He went on and on about how China didn’t have a chance, and that while China might have a few hundred nuclear warheads, that is nothing to the 6,500 nuclear weapons that America has.
He further elaborated that he KNOWS (we have mutual boyhood friends in high level military operations) that traps have been sprung; safeties are off, and it’s just a matter of time… and not long either… when China will finally be punished for all of it’s evil misdeeds.
He said that I am in great danger.
He said that China will be “hit hard” and he KNOWS that China will stand alone and take the most incredible beating ever seen by man. He said that every nation either despises China or is afraid of it, but when the “call goes out” the entire rest of the world will swarm to kick China into a beaten pulp.
He proudly talked about how America has very strong nuclear capabilities and that the generals are not afraid to use them. New orders have been issued, and “everyone knows” that there will be a hot kinetic war soon.
He said that the tiny independent nation of Taiwan (?) has some “tricks up it’s sleeve” and that the USA and China has been at war for years now and I should see the “writing on the wall” and recognize that the time to leave my “third world shit-hole” is fast coming to an end. There is only a short “window of opportunity” remaining and that I should take it.
…
He said other things also, but…
But this really gets to me.
He knows nothing. And I find his ignorance of what China is astoundingly insulting. And he’s a smart man. I an only just imagine what others might say; those that only get their information from the government controlled “news” media.
China is NOT what is portrayed. He should know better as he has seem my lifestyle; my family, and what it is like. Yet, for some odd reason, he thinks that it is terminally dingy, grey skies, and full of evil selfish people. Jeeze! It isn’t. This is what China actually is. VIDEO.
Video
But he has provided me with some critical Intel about what Americans think. And it is what I have been saying all along. I spent 40 years of my life in the United States and 20 in China. I know how it works.
America is on a “war footing”.
Americans are desirous of a nice solid hot war, and they will get it.
The “ball is rolling” and it cannot be stopped.
That this long war will be intended to be in the far-away South China Sea.
The war will enjoy the support of a vast majority of Americans who all now despise all Chinese.
He argued that it’s only a matter or time that China will make a mistake, and when it does, “all Hell will break loose“.
And that China doesn’t have a chance.
Key points are omitted by all those wanting war
You know, each and every time I come across these arguments, the “elephant in the room” is always omitted. And it’s funny and odd. Very important points are ignored as if they are meaningless. And when I bring up these points, they are ignored. And what is amazing is that even the most intelligent people in the United States are falling for this narrative.
These points are always left out and ignored. What points you might ask?
How about, for starters…
It will be a war inside of America. Any war with China will be on American soil, and personal. It will not be off in a far away South China Sea.
Let that point sink in. Not far away. But will hit “home”. China will make FUCKING SURE that America feels what it is like to be attacked. This is a fact. Deal with it.
Taiwan is not an “independent” nation. Both Taiwan and Mainland China mutually agree that there is only one China. Not two separate nations.
Let that point register. Taiwan is NOT a separate nation. The UN doesn’t think so. China doesn’t think so, and even Taiwan doesn’t think so. But for some crazy insane reason, the United States thinks so.
For those of you who are still not convinced, here’s the President of the United States telling you that Taiwan is China. That China owns Taiwan.
A war against all of Asia. Russia and China are military allies and will fight together.
Like I said, this is something NO ONE is talking about. They just gloss over it as if it is unimportant.
China is dangerous. China is a merit driven society that is very smart.
America is an oligarchy ruled military empire that is in a free-fall decline right now. And China is a nation of merit where everyone starting at six years old gets military training.
Costly does not equate to best. American weapons and personnel relies too much on systems that are easily compromised.
Now, be advised, that there is no question that there will be massive destruction and casualties all over the world. China will take some enormous losses, and some of the beautiful cities will be erased from the earth. I lament that.
But obviously, thinking that America will be “safe” just shows how ignorant and delusional these people are. The United States will be the LAST place you would want to be when the missiles start flying.
As I wrote in my other postings, China and Russia use AI controlled swarm nukes in shotgun saturation’s. They just don’t hit strategic targets, they glass over entire regions. They are very messy with their weapons.
America would be the worst place to be.
For all sorts of reasons.
General points of understanding
Here’s some general points that I want to underline, and then I follow up with the American (and Brit and Australian) beliefs and compare that to what is actually going on.
So, with all this in mind, check out some key points.
Point #1 – Chinese leadership
Capable. Tough. Pragmatic. Peaceful, but don’t fuck with them.
American Disinfo:
Xi Peng is a tyrant, who runs a mafia-like organization out of Beijing. He and his cronies are despised, and once they are killed off, China would collapse.
The disinfo has saturated the dialog.
The truth is that the Chinese leadership is there through merit and hard work, and are supported by an amazing group of other merit driven experts. There are no “diversity hires” here. No positions through Nepotism. No LGBT, or quota driven “experts”. No political appointees. No back-room dealings with union organizers, community organizations or religious figures. They got to power through merit and sacrifice.
These people are all carefully vetted, talented, aggressive, and strategic.
They are savvy and very well attuned to the problems of the world. They will make hard and tough decisions and they will make the right ones, and they will follow through on those decisions without politics or fear.
Chinese leadership.
Were a war to occur, it would be a battle of wits between the global leadership.
If you believe that Tom Cotton, Mike Pompeo, or Joe Biden can out maneuver the Chinese on strategy, then you are wholly delusional.
Point #2 – Chinese Manufacturing
Elaborate, and extensive. Cutting edge technology making the latest in gadgets and devices. Now supplies Germany, Japan and Korea with all their gadgets.
American Disinfo:
China only makes cheap, inexpensive junk. They cannot innovate, and at best operate using slave, and child labor in 19th century sweatshops.
There is this ongoing theme in the American (and Western) “news” media that China only makes “junk” and that if America stopped buying things from China, all of China would collapse. It permeates all American media. Which is Made in China means junk.
There’s also another deception; which is that America is the largest customer of Chinese made products, and that if the USA stops sourcing from China, China would collapse.
It’s not even remotely true.
In 2018, American products accounted for just under 1`1% of all Chinese exports.
Today, in late 2021, the number is actually around 2%.
China hasn’t collapsed.
If you were to really simplify all the issues regarding this singular point you would see that much of what China makes is shipped to other nations for resale under different names. Those high end German cameras are all made in China. They are shipped to Germany. But in boxes and proudly says “Made in Germany” on the box. Then Germany sells those cameras to the United States who mistakenly believe that they are buying a German manufactured product.
I know because I am active in that industry. That’s the way it is done.
This is the same with Korea, Japan, and Australia as well. Most of the real cheap stuff has been off-shored to much poorer nations so that the retailers can maintain their profit margins.
For shits and giggles, here’s a comparison between the US Spacestation and the Chinese spacestation. VIDEO here.
Video
Now, let’s pause and consider two issues were a war to erupt.
All exports of goods out of China would end. Which thus means that the export of all products would thus completely end.
China would continue to manufacture things, for Chinese use. Whether rubber duckies, or nuclear warheads. And they would do so with ruthless precision, speed and quality.
The United States, would be unable to complete because most of the industrial parks all over the nation don’t make things. They are just nice office buildings that house accountants, lawyers, HR, diversity officers, and some supply line experts.
Those that exist have large boxy pole-frame buildings that house the warehouses from the items obtained from overseas, but the actual floor and manufacturing lines are not present. You can identify those structures by rectangle buildings with many windows for lighting.
American industrial park. Many warehouses. Not one single assembly factory. You can see the office building and all the warehouses, but nothing is physically being made here in this “factory”.
Look at an aerial view of a typical American “Industrial park”. Where’s the rail lines, the loading bays and the warehouses to store the manufactured products at? These are warehouse distribution points.
Not manufacturing facilities.
Were a war to occur, America would soon run out of tangible things. Not just war material, but also the things that the American citizenry have come to expect in their life.
Like medicine. Like automotive computers. Like tools. Like appliances.
Not China. They make things and have an enormous infrastructure to support industry. Video here.
Video
Point #3 – Chinese Weapons systems
Chinese weapons systems are state of the art, available in massive quantities, operated by motivated and skilled soldiers that are fighting for the right to exist.
American Disinfo:
China's military consists of conscripts using cheaply made soviet-era copies, and supplemented with antiquated former Soviet Union equipment.
The Shenyang FC/J-31 and the Chengdu J-20 of the top line Chinese aircraft in use today.
I often see articles (in the Western press) praising the great high technology systems of the grand American military. And their specifications are truly spectacular. It seems like every plane is a “race car”, every device has the latest in graphical interface and exotic technology.
But they all need to be based, repaired and serviced.
When supply lines break down, many of these great systems are simply junk. Aside from the fact that no matter how great a plane is, it does need to land. And if you are fighting China, there will not be any place to land.
The Chinese have perfected some very advanced systems that are decades ahead of anything that America has. Do not be so sure that invading China would be another Iraq. It will not be.
Point #4 – Chinese Size
China is a huge nation, with an enormous population. In fact there are more Chinese that speak English (as a second language) than Americans in the entire world.
American Disinfo:
China is like Bangladesh or India, only much larger.
Couple that with the absolute ignorance of Americans. They have no idea about this. Or much as anything else for that matter.
Most Americans are clueless about geography. I don’t mean just a little bit ignorant, I mean absolutely and positively ignorant. Check out this VIDEO to show you what I am talking about…
Clueless video.
Pretty astounding, huh?
True America…
1. *AT&T fired President John Walter after nine months, saying he lacked intellectual leadership. He received a $26 million severance package. Perhaps it's not Walter who's lacking the intelligence
2. *WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM OUR FRIENDS: Police in Oakland, CA spent two hours attempting to subdue a gunman who had barricaded himself inside his home. After firing ten tear gas canisters, officers discovered that the man was standing beside them in the police line, shouting, 'Please come out and give yourself up.'
3. *WHAT WAS PLAN B? An Illinois man, pretending to have a gun, kidnapped a motorist and forced him to drive to two different automated teller machines, wherein the kidnapper proceeded to withdraw money from his own bank accounts.
4. *THE GETAWAY! A man walked into a Topeka, Kansas Kwik Stop and asked for all the money in the cash drawer. Apparently, the take was too small, so he tied up the store clerk and worked the counter himself for three hours until police showed up and grabbed him.
5. *DID I SAY THAT? Police in Los Angeles had good luck with a robbery suspect who just couldn't control himself during a lineup. When detectives asked each man in the lineup to repeat the words: 'Give me all your money or I'll shoot', the man shouted, 'that's not what I said!'
6. *ARE WE COMMUNICATING? A man spoke frantically into the phone: 'My wife is pregnant and her contractions are only two minutes apart'. 'Is this her first child?' the doctor asked. 'No!' the man shouted, 'This is her husband!'
7. *NOT THE SHARPEST TOOL IN THE SHED! In Modesto, CA, Steven Richard King was arrested for trying to hold up a Bank of America branch without a weapon. King used a thumb and a finger to simulate a gun. Unfortunately, he failed to keep his hand in his pocket. (hellooooooo...!!!)
8. *THE GRAND FINALE!Last summer, down on Lake Isabella, located in the high desert, an hour east of Bakersfield, CA, some folks, new to boating, were having a problem. No matter how hard they tried, they couldn't get their brand new 22 foot boat, going. It was very sluggish in almost every maneuver, no matter how much power they applied. After about an hour of trying to make it go, they putted into a nearby marina, thinking someone there may be able to tell them what was wrong. A thorough topside check revealed everything in perfect working condition. The engine ran fine, the out-drive went up and down, and the propeller was the correct size and pitch. So, one of the marina guys jumped in the water to check underneath. He came up choking on water, he was laughing so hard. Under the boat, still strapped securely in place, was the trailer!
*Now remember, these are all true stories and these people vote and have children
Heck, they have been dumbed down to such a point that they can’t even find Africa on a map! With this is an understanding about how enormous China actually is. In America, New York city is considered to be the largest city. While in China, there are a few hundred cities that are much, much larger.
Just a small “fishing village”.
Being such an enormous nation with such enormous resources makes it a very formidable foe. Everyone knows that you do not poke a stick at a tiger, as it will lunge at your and kill you swiftly, but that is exactly what the United States is doing today.
Point #5 – Chinese International standing
American Disinfo:
The entire world despises and hates China, and they are isolated, and scorned.
China is not isolated. It is not universally hated, and it is not considered to be demonic.
The world realizes that the United States is collapsing, and the Asia (Russia and China) are on the rise. They are looking towards the future. And that means to be on the “good side” of the nations of the future.
There are exceptions such as the Australians, and the Brits, but for the most part the nations are pragmatic and are looking at staying out of any conflict with the American military Empire, and the very powerful Russia / China block. VIDEO
Russia and China are very close allies. If you don’t believe me, then read what XI Peng, and Putin’s comments on this subject.
Point #6 – The Chinese are serious
American Disinfo:
China is run by corrupt insiders who got there though graft, crime and corruption. They are simply stooges that do whatever it takes to maintain power.
One of the biggest mistakes that Americans make (at all levels) is to misinterpret the Chinese. They play politics, they cater to the media, they perform rude actions, and they goad the Chinese. You do not do this and not expect consequences.
Just because the tiger is sleeping does not mean that it is not aware, that it’s fangs are not sharp and that it is not ready to tear you from limb to the other limb.
Consider the tit-for-tat VTOL carrier shoot-ups in 2020…
Chinese new carrier type-075 catches fire in Shanghai. April 2020. Mysterious fire causes massive damage.
Look what happened to the USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6) after the fire broke out on the Type-075 carrier. It was totaled and hauled off to the scrap yard.
Two months later, the American carrier USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6). Junked. July 2020.
I have often made the statement that the Chinese are a serious, serious nation that does not play. But it’s very true.
Point #7 – Military culture
American Disinfo:
China is a nation of pacifists, and they will never use nuclear weapons, nor respond to United States provocations.
The Chinese haven't fought any wars in such a long time that they don't how to. And when the fighting starts, most of the military will crumble.
China is not a military empire. The United States is.
However, China is a merit driven society that demands doing one’s best as part of a group and everyone receives military training.
There is this belief that somehow Australian, Canadian and American forces can land inside of China and take over cities, communities and critical infrastructure and China would allow it, or fight back in crude disorganized manners. This is far from the truth.
China would fight as if their very existence was at stake, because it would be. China will never, absolutely NEVER, allow another “rape of Nanjing”.
Everyone would fight. From 6 year old “Pioneers” to retired 90 year olds. No passive passivists here. They are ready to kill and die for their home.
Here’s a video what first grade looks like in CHINA. When did you learn combat training? How to hold and clean a gun? How to form squads and lead them? These kids are only six years old. VIDEO here.
VIDEO
This video is great!
In China, military training is mandatory and begins in first grade. It continues until the students graduate from high school.
China has over 6000 years of continuous, in-your-face fighting. They are the descendants of the armies of Genghis Khan. I would strongly suggest not fucking with them.
Point #8 – China is a unified society
This canard that America loves the Chinese but hates the Chinese leadership is ingrained in the American “news” media. It’s a lie. And it shows just how ignorant America is of the reality. China is homogenized, and a unified force.
American Disinfo:
China is a fractured country of dissatisfied poverty-ridden peasants. When offered an opportunity for freedom and democracy, they would revolt and break away from the iron-grip hold of Beijing.
When you kill one leader, the others just automatically take it’s place. This system is like water, you can take out a spoonful, and the water would flow back in place. In America, where there is a two tiered society that is balkanized, there isn’t any unity, no cohesiveness, and so transitions in leadership. It’s all a scripted fiasco. As any observer of modern contemporaneous America can clearly show.
This hospital was built in ten days. All by volunteers. All meals gas, equipment, and hospital equipment and building materials were all either loaned or given freely. This aspect of how the community works together in a crisis was NEVER reported in the West.
The premise is that America must be number #1
We hear this all the time on CNN, FOX and the rest of American media. No one asks what makes America so special. Because if you actually compare America to the rest of the world, it ranks rather poorly on a wide selection of attributes. In many of the attributes at the very rock-bottom of the lists.
America has FAILED to provide for it’s citizenry. Health care is a for-profit joke. Transportation is expensive, as is food, housing, and education. The government does not serve the people, and it is a police state oligarchy that operates as a military empire. It’s a true mess.
So tell me, why MUST America be the boss of planet Earth?
No one can answer why.
Why must the current mess that the United States is, be allowed or permitted to exist. It does not serve it’s people. It’s a war empire that causes destruction all over the world, it rapes and pillages, and is run but a small handful of evil greedy oligarchs. Why?
Why is it important that the world become like America? VIDEO
Video of City life inside of America.
Still not convinced, well lets go to a DIFFERENT city… VIDEO
Video
Still not convinced, it is EVERYWHERE in America. Ok, well lets go to a third DIFFERENT city… VIDEO
Video
The War is on-going
My brother does have a point however. There is a war going on. It’s just that the United States is pushing, pushing, pushing and China is just sitting back and taking it.
Here’s a video showing how the Air Force and the Navy aviation pilots train so that they can shoot down and kill Chinese aircraft over China.
Training to kill Chinese.
Chinese team with Russia to warn Japan from aligning with the United States
Here’s something that hasn’t been reported in the American “news”.
This is a bit of a forceful move since diplomacy hasn’t worked. And the Brits and the Americans are flabbergasted that Russia would even dare sail with China. They argue that China has no rights to sail at will in international waters as it is a provocation, but America can and it is not a provocation if America does it. Video here.
Video
Chinese can build things at a pace that is difficult to comprehend
This is a very important point.
Oh, it’s not just two hospitals in ten days, or 35 submarines in one year, or 2000 nuclear ICBMS in six months. It’s everything. China can out manufacture anyone, out repair anything, and do it quickly, carefully and with decent quality. None of which is reported in the West. None of it is. VIDEO. So friggin’ amazing!
Video.
This reminds me of the Star Trek franchise where you have this race of creatures called the “Borg”. When their “cube” space ships are damaged, the damage is repaired with such speed that it looks like it is self healing before your very eyes. This, my friends, is China today.
The Chinese military is dangerous
Here’s a training exercise. Hey! Do you see any cheap AK-47 / SKS clones here? Do you see uneducated peasants? Do you see any starving people that was all that delicious freedom and democracy out of America? VIDEO
Video
China is a force to be afraid of…
Comparisons
It’s easy to find “armchair generals” and Conservative websites making comparisons between China and America.
As if it is actually possible.
They point out that America has a military and gun culture. That America is technically advanced, and it has the largest military in history with bases literally everywhere, and a huge and enormous and nearly unlimited amount of military weapons and hardware.
Which is pretty much what my brother was doing.
It’s so easy to look at one tiny little aspect and not see the entire picture.
Like looking at the number of nuclear warheads, for instance, like my brother did.
A comparison of nuclear armed submarines. China looks like the “little guy”. It looks so pathetic compared to the advanced developed systems of other navies.
But the true story is something quite different.
The Chinese military is not designed for force projection, invasion or remote operations. It is designed for up, in-your-face hard and severe defensive actions. The United States will not be able to take 100% of it’s military to fight on the Chinese shores in the South China Sea…
…but China can.
What Americans expect from a war with China.
You can disagree with my calculus, but those in America expect something quite different than what I expect.
Americans expect “A” to happen while I, a ex-spook with knowledge of a host of information, expect “B”.
Which is pretty much why my brother and I disagree so much.
It doesn’t mean that I don’t love him.
It just means that I get my information from different sources then him, and that I have a different perspective simply because I have both feet in both worlds. I know America. I know China. So thus, my understanding is that the result will be “B”.
I think that it’s not just that it’s non-stop “hate China” 24/7, but also that the pulsed thought control mechanisms have been working “overtime” to drum in all this hatred. I wrote about this before, and it was validated by vault 7. Americans are not just thought controlled, but are actually brainwashed. And so they believe “A”.
As a result of all this, American, and other “western” nations that follow the “news” media have these assumptions about what a war with China would look like. It all presents a very detailed picture of “A”.
And ignoring the facts that will make the reality actually be “B”.
These next key bullet points are what Americans expect to happen with a war with China. These are all the “givens” that “everyone knows” will occur with a war between the USA and China, and why.
First up is one of the TOP big assumptions that all Americans, Brits, and Australians believe…
1 – China is alone.
It will be a war against China, and China would be alone and isolated.
China is so evil and predatory that no one would stand by China. Already there have been numerous articles that say that Russia would abandon China, and that China would be alone with no friends. It is a fabricated narrative, but the American public just loves to read this fantasy.
Absolutely and positively there is not one single article or conservative publication that says otherwise.
No one is talking about other nations joining China to stand up to America. Not one. Since no one is looking at this issue, it is automatically assumed that any war with China, will have China alone and isolated where it can be pummeled by the USA relentlessly.
Look at every single map used by “armchair strategists” when describing a war / blockade / event with China. the image sure makes China look alone and isolated.
First and second island chain QUAD containment strategy.
They NEVER show China’s military allies.
Never.
Ever.
N-E-V-E-R.
Google it. Maps showing Chinese allies are nowhere to be found. Yet, we know that the SEC and BRICS+ are chock-full of them.
Further, in all the previous wars that America has fought, no other nations came to the aid of the attacked nation. Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan all were alone, isolated and “on their own” while America attacked them. It is natural for Americans to expect this exact same kind of behavior with a war with China.
Notice how all the maps drawing about “China containment” leave out the Russians and other Chinese allies. In the map below, notice how Russia and Iran, North Korea, and the Philippines are all either neutral or listed as American allies. Which are not true at all.
In the map below…
[1] Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia and the Philippines should be pink. In fact, most of the nations shown on the map would be allied with China, and that includes most of Africa and the middle east.
[2] Iran should be shown as pink as well as Afghanistan, and Pakistan.
[3] Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand and Vietnam would be pink.
[4] Taiwan is pink, but the leadership is green. Don’t be so sure that it is a SOLID green.
[5] Philippines is pink.
[6] North Korea is pink.
[7] Indonesia is pink.
In fact, the entire map would be pink except for Japan, Australia and South Korea. The reality differs substantially from what is pictured and presented to the American audience.
The planned “ring of containment”.
2 – American allies will die for the USA.
Most of the fighting will be borne by American allies under the leadership of American forces. (Britain, Japan, Australia and Korea).
The American leadership knows that huge death rates are very bad for career politicians. They lose elections. So they do not want to a war where there are huge American casualties.
The “containment nations”; the QUAD meets for discussions on how to host American military in their countries, and the absorption of huge quantities of invasion supplies.
Instead, of this, they want American troops to be safe inside of bases, running remote drone strikes, or flying stealth aircraft that cannot be hit.
After the announcement of the QUAD, it has become clear that America expects Australia, Japan and Britain to do most of the dying.
3 – A just war against evil.
It will be a “just war” against an evil empire. The brave and just Americans will “fight for democracy” and liberate those oppressed by communism.
No one wants to think of themselves as evil, and Americans will always refer to themselves as “exceptional democracy” instead of the oligarchy run military empire that it actually is.
The non-stop villainization of China has been relentless and constant. Ergo: China is evil. It needs to be destroyed.
As a result, most Americans have a very unfavorable opinion of China.
But you know, the world is really tired of this never ending drum-beat about a nation before the United States invades it. Watch this VIDEO at how the rest of the world reacts to the American claims of mistreatment in China…
You can see this in the “concentration camp” narrative of Xingjiang, and the stories of rape, torture, and predatory saber rattling, etc, etc.
But you know, it’s all a lie.
Here’s the truth. This fellow is the EU representative who is telling the United States and the rest of the UN why the EU is breaking away from partnering with the United States to “contain” China.
Note that this (and his other speeches) were never broadcast in the United States. Americans have no clue that most of the EU has allied with China. VIDEO.
Video
4 – The war will be conventional using the most advanced high-tech weapons.
The war will be conventional.
Though the USA could use some precise micro nukes, no one would dare risk nuclear annihilation in fighting back. As my brother so clearly said; China has a few paltry nukes while America can destroy the world thousands of times over.
China wouldn’t DARE attack the Untied States mainland.
It will be conventional because that is how America fights it’s long string of wars. Always with conventional forces after a softening up of anti-nation propaganda.
This is so ingrained in American culture that it is a profound given.
America would “never” start a war, and just as certainly would “never” use weapons of mass destruction. This is because America has the “technical advantage” and is able to conduct ‘surgical strikes” with accuracy and precision.
5 – China is far weaker than it appears.
China would be a “pushover” nation using cheaply made rifles and fielding many illiterate peasants.
This just shows how ignorant Americans are. But still they believe it. Since there simply isn’t ANY positive news about China, the assumptions made by Americans are always of the worst possible image.
In this case, poorly trained conscripts, reluctant to fight a war, handed cheap AK-47 clones, and told to throw themselves at the proud American occupation forces. Not true.
The real face of China is never presented to the West or to Americans.
The Chinese are a tough people. They are not “pushovers”.
Here’s a VIDEO where the Americans who fought the Chinese in Korea relate what it was like, and the over all quality of the soldiers, even though they were over-matched by the superior weight and quantity of American overwhelming military superiority….
They did not fear death.
All Chinese are trained to kill.
There are no conscious objectors. Training starts in first grade. Six year old children; boys and girls. Yeah. No shit. First grade. There is mandatory boot camp in middle school, and everyone spends two years in the armed forces. VIDEO.
Oh, and by the way… that’s 1.6 billion people that can fight. Remember, America only has 330 million people tops.
Video
Middle school training.
Over the last five years, the training program for all students has been revamped. It has become more rigorous, more militarily focused, with a great emphasis on tactics, weapons training, and endurance.
The video below shows school children in a massive weekend training exercise. VIDEO.
6 – The war would be far away
The war would last for decades, and be in China, and far away.
It would NEVER hit American states; American cities, American ports, or American industry. Never.
Most Americans assume that the next war will be like the last. And since America has been fighting eight simultaneous wars for decades, they naturally assume that China will just be the same-oh, same-oh.
The general characteristics of American wars are that they are far away, fighting evil terrorists (who deserve it) and that Americans are always and forever safe in their homes and in their communities.
The war would be televised and presented on all the social media.
It would become a hobby for a bored, unemployed, drug addicted nation to view. It would be the equivalent of “bread and circuses” in ancient Rome. Facebook and Twitter would carry news about the latest successes, death counts and pictures of proud Americans waving the flag while the adoring Chinese clamor for all their freedom and democracy.
America would be spared. No fighting would occur inside of America.
America has fought war after war, after war. And in every instance no one ever brought the war to America. Sure there was a bombing of the Hawaii naval base at Pearl harbor, and 9-11 but those were incidents. Not war.
Since modern America has never experienced war, Americans assume that it never will. Many SHTF people are planning for domestic war, terror, and societal breakdowns. None are expecting the collapse of the United States, and a proxy / Vichy government set up to service the needs of the Asian block.
9 – The USA would unify
While the war is going on, American domestic problems would end, and a new “renaissance” would occur inside of America.
All of America, on both sides of the ideological spectrum, are filled with a hatred off all things Chinese.
There’s this belief that “things must change”, and something harsh and televised like a war will make Americans proud again, and rally them towards a cause. This rally point will unify the balkanized nation and bring it together, and in the process would be a great healing and repair of all the many neglected and broken systems that abound throughout the nation.
10 – Manageable casualties
No excessive American casualties. There would be causalities, and maybe a ship or two might be sunk and a few aircraft downed. But nothing excessive.
Most Americans, and I do mean MOST, are extremely ignorant. They mistakenly believe that China is not a dangerous nation, and that it will just be a larger Yemen, or Syria. Americans realize that people die in wars, as many of the anti-China crowd has watched Rambo movies, but they believe that only the bad guys die. Not the brave strong American forces. Sure, one or two might die, but whole scale destruction will never happen.
11 – Taiwan needs American rescue
Taiwan is a nation in need of rescue.
The non-stop description of what Taiwan is, compared to the reality is so in variance that it has taken me many articles to untangle the lies and distortions. You all can believe what ever you want. Just recognize that the American image of what Taiwan is is wholly that of a poor struggling democracy that is shivering in place under the harsh thumb of oppressive communism. LOL!
So much for the American fantasy.
Now lets talk about the real things that will happen
Well, that’s what most Americans think. And judging from the pro-war Brits and Australians, it’s what the allies believe as well.
Australians in Afghanistan working for the American military.
Here, let’s look at what both the Chinese and the Russians EXPECT will happen with a war with America over some “Chinese or Russian” issues. They do not read MSN, FOX “news”, Zero Hedge, Hall Turner, or the Drudge Report. They have their own experts, sources of intel, and strategic planners.
Now, let’s look at what I know, and what is not being presented to the American people. Here is the REALITY that WILL OCCUR.
Here’s some things that are real things that will really happen if the US wages war against China…
1 – A war against an SEO member would be a war against a unified Asia.
China will NOT be alone. Russia would fight alongside China. And Iran would join the fray. All of Asia will fight as one.
Mr Putin and Xi Peng have both reaffirmed that if either nation is attacked that they would both act as one against the attacker.
.
The other participants of the SEO have varying levels of interest in joint military participation, but the combined military might of a unified Asia is formidable and threatening.
.
Which is why many of us Asia and China watchers are ‘scratching our heads” in bewilderment with the United States actions designed to provoke a war.
SEO joint exercises.
Please forgive me if my words betray my frustration. That is because I have been saying the same thing for years and it seems to me that almost no-one has “connected the dots.”
As many of us know, the nuclear armed nations of the world agreed decades ago that no one nation would initiate a nuclear first strike against another nation, because they realized that the consequence of such an action would be the end of human life on earth. That realization cooled the nuclear arms race down to everyone’s relief.
Then in the first week of April, 2014, the President of the United States, Barrack Obama, announced publicly that the nuclear weapons strategy of the US has changed: the US is now willing to make a first strike on China with nuclear weapons.
Needless to say that public statement freaked out 1 – 2 billion Chinese people around the globe. Understandably, the President of the Republic of China, Xi Jinping, announced publicly that he ordered China’s nuclear armed submarine fleet to go immediately to the US west coast. He also reassured the Chinese people that Chinese intercontinental ballistic missiles could travel over the North Pole and destroy major cities and other targets in the eastern US.
One or two days later a Chinese envoy arrived at the Kremlin in the Federation of Russia with an envelope for Vladimir Putin, President of the Federation of Russia. The contents of the envelope initiated Article 9 of the Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation Between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation.
Article 9 states:
“When a situation arises in which one of the contracting parties deems that peace is being threatened and undermined or its security interests are involved or when it is confronted with the threat of aggression, the contracting parties shall immediately hold contacts and consultations in order to eliminate such threats.”
Let us stop for a moment and recap the events.
[1] The President of the US declared publicly that the US was willing to conduct a nuclear first strike on China.
[2] The Chinese people freaked out.
[3] The president of China took defensive measures including asking Russia for help with this unforeseen mess.
The Russians responded, as they must and feel obligated to do after they make an agreement with China. After all, the Russians are “agreement capable.”
[4] The Russian move was truly brilliant.
Enter the USS Donald Cook incident. (DC for short) The videos of the DC incident were so widespread, and so many people made copies of the video that “they” could not possibly scrub the video off the Internet. However, they are trying to change the date of the incident.
Anyway, a day or two after the Chinese envoy arrived at the Kremlin and invoked Article 9 of the aforementioned Treaty, the Russians made a move.
The USS Donald Cook is the most advanced Aegis class missile destroyers in the US navy. The DC was in the Black Sea at this time and the Russians make their move.
Two Russian fighter jets approached the DC; one with advanced electronic warfare hardware, and one as an escort. The DC electronics, computers, radar, and all electronics crashed, leaving the DC “dead in the water.” Then the Russian jet escort made twelve mock attack runs on the DC. And you probably already know about the Russian helicopter crew videotaping the commotion onboard the DC.
That is not my point.
My point is the Chinese invoked Article 9 of the “Treaty” and the Russian response was twofold.
Firstly, the Russians showed the Chinese that the Russians will honor their promises, and secondly, the Russians showed the US that Russians are not to be underestimated.
What does this mean?
2 – From the very start, nuclear weapons will be used.
Nuclear weapons will be used at the start. There would not be any escalation from conventional to nuclear arms.
This is Chinese doctrine (against a nation that attacks its soil).
This is Russian doctrine (against a hostile nuclear power).
Here’s a fine nuclear explosion to remind you what we are talking about here. VIDEO here.
Video
And since the United States has been so God awfully Hell bent on starting a war, China has been mass producing missiles and nuclear weapons at an outrageous pace.
It’s like making bushels of paper lanterns.
China does not play.
And, of course…
3 – All American bases everywhere will come under fire.
American bases will be attacked. Any nations supporting American troops in any way will be attacked. When I say “attacked” I mean erased, vaporized, glassed over, and gone.
Nuclear bang-bang.
Guam… no more.
Major American military facilities in the area around China.
Say good bye to Guam.
Same goes for all of Honolulu, Hawaii.
San Diego, Diego Garcia, Korean and Japanese bases…
To the American military bases in Australia, and the city of Perth. Say good bye to the bases anywhere close to China.
Bye Bye.
Hawaii will become a series of tiny, tiny radioactive shoals and islands.
All American military bases would be flattened.
There is a strategy that the United States can spread out it’s bases in the South China Sea. Instead of having eight major hubs, they can turn it into thirty smaller military logistical and launch hubs. I am here to tell you that that will not work.
Eight bases = eight nuclear detonations.
35 Bases = 35 nuclear detonations.
It doesn’t matter.
4 – American cities will be nuked.
America will be hit with nuclear warheads, and cities will be destroyed.
I do not think that Russia and China are stupid.
Washington DC will be gone, that’s a fact. And I hate to break the news to you, but probably LA, New York, Chicago, Huston, Boston, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Seattle as well. In fact, you can expect all urban areas in America to be erased, and their inhabitants flooding the countryside…
…armed, pissed off, sick, hungry and radioactive. As they carry biological warfare plagues and pustule sores on their tattooed urban bodies. Good luck with your precious “democracy” and “freedom” then. Suckers!
And it will be China and Russia, not the USA, that will determine when and how to deal with this war.
And yes, the USA will be able to go MAD with the huge substantial and dangerous American nuclear arsenal… … provided the communication lines are up, the satellite links are up, and the computers still work.
And just in case you are brain dead, here’s some videos of nuclear explosions to show the kind of power that China currently has. The last three are Chinese nukes just in case you are convinced that they don’t have any. VIDEO.
Video
Remember, a nuclear hit on Mono Lake will render the entire water supply for the entire West Coast of America… radioactive.
Remember, a nuclear hit on the San Andres fault line will generate earthquakes up and down the West Coast.
Remember, that a submerged underwater nuclear detonation would take out all of inhabited Virginia, as well as one off the coast of Florida would totally erase that state.
5 – All trade would stop.
All trade would stop. All of it. At least all sea trade.
Inland Asia routes would remain intact. So trade would continue throughout Asia. But the trade to the Americas would end. And they would be on their own until the Untied States could rebuild up it’s industries, train its workers, and find enough remaining local metals and resources to fire up those new factories.
Most Americans (Brits and Australians) have no idea just how vulnerable the world is with trade. To use aluminum as an example, sure America can run aluminum extrusion factories, but they can’t make anything because all the alloy metals are from China.
As are 95% of all drugs.
And so on and so forth.
And with the end of trade comes breakdowns in society. Hospitals will not be able to treat people. Factories will shut down (well the few that exist will). Fast food restaurants will start to open on short hours.
There isn’t anything made in the United States today that is 100% sourced domestically. NOTHING.
6 – The USD, and thus the American economy would collapse.
The United States Dollar will collapse.
Long overdue, but it will happen and there is nothing better to accelerate the demise than a war. Were a war to occur, the value of the USD would equate to zero.
Zero.
As in absolutely nothing.
Here is video that describes how China bailed out two recent economic emergencies that the USA found itself in. The first was in 2008, and China bought up trillions in useless American debt, and the second was by raising the credit limits. With the way the USA is behaving right now, China will no longer help out and the USA must fend for itself. Watch this mind-blowing VIDEO.
Video
With the trillions of dollars in spending over the last few years, the USA economic scene resembles something out of “The Outer Limits” or “The Twilight Zone”. And China will no longer help such an openly hostile nation.
You can only pay the blackmail amounts only so long.
It’s over.
Other systems would need to be put in place to handle the chaos that would result. It would be a very testy time, and do not be under the mistaken impression that Asia would allow America to time and resources to deal with the resulting domestic discord.
They would instead aggravate it and allow the American people to eat each other alive. Which they most certainly will.
Here’s a VIDEO where the Singapore foreign minister talks about how the USA strong-armed them to accept American debt and the USD and what the consequences will be.
Video
7 – America would fracture.
America, which is balkanized, would fracture into fiefdoms.
That’s the good news. Some smaller government will be the result of all this. Federal leadership would disappear. Mobs, gangs, militias would all start to appear, and it would be a scramble for power that would be very brutal.
Here’s a balkanized America where the states would keep many of their original territorial lines.
Suggested new nations assuming local state capitals are spared nuclear destruction.
And here’s one based on great cultural and societal upheavals…
Domestic upheaval fractured state.
Why would there be social upheavals? Well it is easy to see. The capitalist system, and the government operations are out of touch with the vast bulk of Americans. It’s no only not working, but it is beyond repair. It is broken, seriously broken. VIDEO.
Video
8 – It would take many decades for America to rebuild.
America would not be able to rebuild, but China and Russia would be able to move into complete ready to use, new cities almost immediately.
America is in it’s prime, and it can’t build worth shit. How is this situation going to improve with the general collapse of the entire society? The truth is that it cannot, and when there is no media to tell everyone that everything is fine, it will be the harsh slap of realty that will not be at all comfortable.
The people who will rebuild the United States.
9 – GBP and PPP would be altered throughout the West.
The standard of living for many nations would change. America would change severely, and the survivors inside of America would not survive this new reality well.
Most of this is due to the great fragility of the West. The decades of looting, and the artificially inflated worth and value of everything will start crashing down to actual values. But now, with serious structural and domestic problems, and destroyed cities, major governmental structural change will be necessary. if they do not happen, the collapse will be far worse, but even if attempts were made to get a handle on the collapse, it will still result in great swaths of destitution throughout society.
10 – Destruction all over the globe.
Every nation will experience massive destruction. Some will be much worse than others.
Deagel 2020 revision to the original 2012 Deagel Forecast
The Deagel forecast was a CIA exercise to remote view 2025. The results were horrific.
BlueNarwhal:
Forecast disclaimer revision in 2020:
In 2014 we published a disclaimer about the forecast. In six years the scenario has changed dramatically. This new disclaimer is meant to single out the situation from 2020 on-wards.
Talking about the United States and the European Union as separated entities no longer makes sense. Both are the Western block, keep printing money and will share the same fate.
After COVID we can draw two major conclusions:
The Western world (success model) has been built over societies with no resilience. They can barely withstand any hardship, even a low intensity one. It was assumed but now we’ve got the full hard confirmation beyond any doubt. They are weak to the point of a decapitated cripple.
The COVID crisis will be used to extend the life of this dying economic system through the so called “Great Reset.”
The Great Reset;
Like the climate change, extinction rebellion, planetary crisis, green revolution, shale oil (…) hoaxes promoted by the system; is another attempt to slow down dramatically the consumption of natural resources and therefore extend the lifetime of the current system.
It can be effective for awhile but finally won’t address the bottom-line problem and will only delay the inevitable. The core ruling elites hope to stay in power which is in effect the only thing that really worries them.
Collapse of the USD Financial Banking System
The collapse of the Western financial system – and ultimately the Western civilization – has been the major driver in the 2012 forecast along with a confluence of crisis with a devastating outcome.
Progressive Multiculturalism failures
As COVID has proven Western societies embracing multiculturalism and extreme liberalism are unable to deal with any real hardship.
Coronavirus Pandemic
The Spanish flu one century ago represented the death of 40-50 million people. Today the world’s population is four times greater with air travel in full swing which is by definition a super spreader. The death casualties in today’s World would represent 160 to 200 million in relative terms but more likely 300-400 million taking into consideration the air travel factor that did not exist one century ago. So far, COVID death toll is roughly 1 million people.
Economic crisis due to forced lock-downs
It is quite likely that the economic crisis due to the lock-downs will cause more deaths than the virus worldwide. The Soviet system was less able to deliver goodies to the people than the Western one. Nevertheless Soviet society was more compact and resilient under an authoritarian regime. That in mind, the collapse of the Soviet system wiped out 10 percent of the population.
The stark reality of diverse and multicultural Western societies is that a collapse will have a toll of 50 to 80 percent depending on several factors. But in general terms the most diverse, multicultural, indebted and wealthy (highest standard of living) will suffer the highest toll.
Life-Support Systems
The only glue that keeps united such aberrant collage from falling apart is over-consumption with heavy doses of bottomless degeneracy disguised as virtue. Nevertheless the widespread censorship, hate laws and contradictory signals mean that even that glue is not working any more.
The Predictions
Not everybody has to die. Migration (out from America, the West, etc.) can also play a positive role in this.
Second and Third World Nations
The formerly (known as) second and third world nations are an unknown at this point. Their fate will depend upon the decisions they take in the future.
Western powers are not going to take over them as they did in the past because these (Western) countries won’t be able to control their very own cities let alone those countries that are far away.
If they remain tied to the former World Order they will go down along with the Western powers. However, they won’t experience the same kind of brutal decline that the Western powers will experience so brazenly. This is partially because they are poorer and (obviously) not diverse enough. Instead they are stronger than the Western powers because they are actually quite homogeneous. This is their advantage. And that they are used to deal with some sort of hardship. Though, not precisely the one that is coming.
If they switch to China they can get a chance to stabilize but will need to depend upon the management of their own resources. We expected this situation to unfold and actually is unfolding right now.
American Election Consequences
With the November election triggering a major bomb if Trump is re-elected. (Did not happen.) If Biden is elected there will very bad consequences as well.
There is a lot of bad blood in the Western societies and the protests, demonstrations, rioting and looting are only the first symptoms of what is coming.
Geo-Political Changes
However a new trend is taking place overshadowing this one. The situation between the three great powers has changed dramatically.
The only relevant achievement of the Western powers during the past decade has been the formation of a strategic alliance, both military and economic, between Russia and China.
Russia and China are a united Asia.
Right now the potential partnership between Russia and the European Union (EU) is dead with Russia turning definitively towards China. That was from the beginning the most likely outcome. Great VIDEO of Chinese weapon systems…
Video
The European Union is on it’s own.
Airbus never tried to establish a real partnership but rather a strategy to fade away the Russian aerospace industry. Actually Russia and China have formed a new alliance to build a long haul airliner.
Western Europe (not to mention the United States) was never interested in the development of Russia or forming anything other than a master slave relationship with Russia providing raw materials and toeing the line of the West.
It was clear then and today is a fact.
Preparations for war
Russia has been preparing for a major war since 2008 and China has been increasing her military capabilities for the last 20 years. Today China is not a second tier power compared with the United States. Both in military and economic terms China is at the same level and in some specific areas are far ahead.
Chinese Technology is state of the art.
In the domain of high-tech 5G has been a success in the commercial realm but the Type 055 destroyer is also another breakthrough with the US gaining a similar capability (DDG 51 Flight IIII) by mid of this decade (more likely by 2030).
Nanchang, the lead ship of the Type 055 class, was commissioned amid the pandemic and lock down in China.
Potential for open war hostilities
Six years ago the likelihood of a major war was tiny.
Since then it has grown steadily and dramatically and today is by far the most likely major event in the 2020s.
The ultimate conflict can come from two ways.
[1] A conventional conflict involving at least two major powers that escalates into an open nuclear war. Most likely initiated by the United States, with a nuclear retaliatory salvo of impressive destructive magnitude.
[2] A second scenario is possible in the 2025-2030 time-frame. A Russian (with possibly China) sneak first strike against the United States and its allies with the new S-500, strategic missile defenses, Yasen-M submarines, INF Zircon and Kalibr missiles and some new space asset playing the key role.
The sneaky first strike would involve all Russian missile strategic forces branches (bombers and ground-based missiles) at the different stages of such attack that would be strategic translation of what was seen in Syria in November 2015.
Massive failures in Western Intelligence Agencies
There was no report that the Russian had such a capability of launching a high precision, multiple, combined arms attack at targets 2,000+ kilometers away.
Western intelligence had no clue.
Brainwashed Moral Superiority
The irony is that since the end of the Cold War the United States has been maneuvering through NATO to achieve a position to be able to execute a first strike (nuclear) over Russia and now it seems that the first strike may still occur but the country finished would be the United States.
Another particularity of the Western system is that its individuals have been brainwashed to the point that the majority accept their moral high ground and technological edge as a given. This has given the rise of the supremacy of the emotional arguments over the rational ones which are ignored or deprecated.
That mindset can play a key role in the upcoming catastrophic events.
At least in the Soviet system the silent majority of the people were aware of the fallacies they were fed up.
We can see the United States claims about 5G being stolen from them by China or hypersonic technology being stolen by Russia as the evidence that the Western elites are also infected by that hubris. Over the next decade it will become obvious that the West is falling behind the Russia-China block and the malaise might grow into desperation.
Why go to war?
Going to war might seem a quick and easy solution to restore the lost hegemony to finally find them into a France 1940 moment. Back then France did not have nuclear weapons to turn a defeat into a victory. The West might try that swap because the unpleasant prospect of not being Mars and Venus but rather a bully and his dirty bitch running away in fear while the rest of the world is laughing at them.
If there is not a dramatic change of course the world is going to witness the first nuclear war.
The Western block collapse may come before, during or after the war. It does not matter. The West will completely collapse. It is fragile. It will be unable to recover from even the slightest societal disruption.
A nuclear war is a game with billions of casualties and the collapse plays in the hundreds of millions.
He Concludes…
This website is non-profit, built on spare time and we provide our information and services AS IS without further explanations and/or guarantees. We are not linked to any government. Take into account that the forecast is nothing more than a game of numbers whether flawed or correct based upon some speculative assumptions. - Friday, September 25th, 2020
11 – Japan will be hurt very badly
Japan erased. If Japan sides with the United States, it will be pulverized into oblivion through nuclear scrubbing. China has never forgotten the “rape of Nanjing” and the failure of Japan to apologize.VIDEO.
VIDEO
Chinese retribution would be swift, lethal and merciless.
The Rape of Nanjing.
Russia and China sailed a flotilla of armed ships around Japan in October 2021. This was a direct result of agreements that japan made with the United States pertaining to QUAD Chinese containment.
The message was clear.
If Japan agrees to work with the United States in any war, Both Russia and China would render Japan impotent. VIDEO here.
Video.
12 – China has already fielded military systems that the West can only dream of.
Video here. We start off with tiny robot grenades, and move from there. Enjoy this look at what is not being reported in the American “news”.
Video.
13 – China has been practicing emergency missile launches.
Here’s a nice video where a Chinese submarine launches all of it’s ballistic nuclear warhead SLBM missiles within one minute one right after the other. America has NEVER done that. The reason being that it is very difficult to keep a submarine stable during subsequent SLBM launchings. But China has mastered it.
I’ll bet you never read about these drills in Zero Hedge, FOX “news” or CNN have you? VIDEO.
Video.
China has been practicing and drilling over and over and over and over.
Anyone who welcomes a War with China (and Russia) is a fucking idiot. VIDEO.
Video
China trains, drills, trains again, drills some more.
It is ruthless.
No breaks. No rests. No apologies. No one is exempt. VIDEO.
These are LIVE FIRE exercises and training. Note how they work together and file in groups of other soldiers. So many chances of accidents. It’s dangerous training, as the weapons are all HOT and LIVE…VIDEO.
Video
14 – All Chinese school children are indoctrinated as warriors
Chinese elementary students are ready to fight.
Every single one of them, all throughout China, has been trained to use small arms, and the basics in squad military tactics.
They are all ready to reverse the “century of humiliation”, and the “Rape of China” all by European forces and their surrogates.
Here’s some third grade students showing first grade students how to assemble and handle rifles, and weapons. VIDEO. It’s a long video at 83MB, but WELL worth the watch.
I recorded it while watching my little girls, so sorry about the chit-chat in the background.
Please pay attention to what is going on. Third grade students doing this. 9 years old. We see them teaching the first and second graders in basic squad movement and behaviors. VIDEO.
Video
15 – China does everything in huge quantities at enormous scales
You won’t have one of two tanks, a plane or two, of maybe two squads lunging at you. You will have massed armies all pissed off and charging at you in wave, after wave, after wave, after wave using peer-capable weapons systems. VIDEO.
Video
15 – The European Union is being forced to choose sides.
The EU is moving to closer relations with China. The United States is forcing the EU to choose between the USA or China.
As it stands right now, the EU is moving towards greater relationships with China and are shunning and abandoning the USA. VIDEO of the spokesperson for the EU.
Video
Conclusion
Here is an email I got from a reader. I’ll give it to you straight:
Living in Southeast Asia, I sometimes worry about China’s encroachment on my life and the way of life of many others in the region. Then, I read another of your columns. I do not want American values to win out in the world; I do not want them in the country of my residence.I dislike Chinese authoritarianism. I dislike American authoritarianism and cultural terrorism more. The Chinese retain a more meritocratic system. They maintain a respect for their traditions. I’ve yet to meet someone from China who is ashamed of being Chinese.For the sake of civilization and human advancement, I prefer China over the U.S., which seems entirely to be ruled and taught by the mentally ill. Soon, we will need to choose between the two.
Now there’s food for thought.
While I have been shaken by the words my brother said, I am not going to leave China. I love it here. It is the safest place on the planet, and I have homes, family, friends, and a life here that I am not going to throw away.
Especially not because some Taiwan billionaire is afraid that China will seize his fiefdom. (I wrote about who wants the war and why they are funding it elsewhere.)
A war would hurt me tremendously, if not kill me outright, and trust me, I am not ready to be at “ground zero” for a nuclear strike. But I must tell you all this; I don’t think that it will be China that will the focus of war like everyone thinks. It will be the United States, and it’s allies.
I am willing to BET MY LIFE on it.
That is how strongly I believe in the Intel that I am providing here.
America has no end game in a war with China. Only the hope and desire that it can be “suppressed” so that America can remain the most dominant nation on the planet.
Of those few who consider a long term strategy, they would consider making the Taiwan government rule over the Chinese mainland. This is a wholly ridiculous notion and it would never happen.
Let’s hope that this period of hostilities ends soon.
This sums up what to expect from China…
Shock them.
A final comment
I think we shall hold true to Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery’s Two Rules of War:
Rule One—Don’t invade Russia.
Rule Two—Don’t invade China.
I do agree with my reader when he says that the U.S.A. has succumbed to government by the mentally ill. Well-nigh every news story I read about the doings of our federal government confirms it.
I tried to read the story that followed, but couldn’t make much sense of it. Yes, it’s like listening to the babble of a lunatic.
War is not a game that you play or read about in the news feeds. It’s a serious serious business, and Russia and China are about ready to send America into the bronze age. You all had best calm down and take a deep breath and figure how you will handle the exodus of radioactive urban youth, hungry, pissed off, and armed as they enter you nice communities, walk on your fine lawns and break into your fine homes.
China should be the last fucking thing on your God damn mind. VIDEO.
China should be the last fucking thing on your God damn mind.
Videos
The embeds are far too slow loading. Enjoy related you-tube videos…
China’s New Military Technology You have Never Seen…
https://youtu.be/aXDK3hCNAVE
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.
The level of rising international tension is extremely concerning yet most people are unconcerned. And unaware.
China
As I have reported previously, it is obvious that the United States is leading “the West” towards a major confrontation with China.
From SOTT…
In a recent article by Prof. James Petras, he sees this "lashing out" taking the form of investment barriers against China. The land of "free trade" ideology will now stop at nothing to restrict China's freedom in international markets. The warmongering in the South China Sea, her traditionally significant trade routes, is just one of the more obnoxious and dangerous.
He writes,
"The Anglo-American and German empires are on the defensive. They increasingly cannot compete economically with China, even in defending their own innovative industries. In large part this is the result of their failed policies. Western economic elite have increasingly relied on short-term speculation in finance, real estate and insurance, while neglecting their industrial base."
Led by the US, their reliance on military conquests (militaristic empire-building) absorb public resources, while China has directed its domestic resources toward innovative and advanced technology (Petras, 2016).
Few realize that the Trans Pacific Partnership excludes China from much of its North American investment plans. However, outside of war, no one will alter their reliance on Chinese markets and products. Walls will be ineffective. This might suggest the bellicose nature of the broke US empire in Asia.
China's political model is generally social nationalist. It has outperformed all others over the last generation. China's recent heavy investment in robotics and nanotechnology almost guarantee the bankrupt USA will be forced to reply on warfare. This, in itself, as Petras suggests, shows exactly why Peking wins while Washington drowns.
One of the most outlandish admissions as to American ill-will in the area is the Council on Foreign Relations' "Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China." One of its complaints is that the Chinese seek to "cast doubt on the US economic model" as part of their agenda. Here is a key passage:
"The fundamental conclusion for the United States, therefore, is that China does not see its interests served by becoming just another "trading state," no matter how constructive an outcome that might be for resolving the larger tensions between its economic and geopolitical strategies. Instead, China will continue along the path to becoming a conventional great power with the full panoply of political and military capabilities, all oriented toward realizing the goal of recovering from the United States the primacy it once enjoyed in Asia as a prelude to exerting global influence in the future (Blackwill and Tellis, 2015)"
The assumption throughout is that the US has an inherent right to dominate the globe. And other power that seeks to supplant this dominance is an enemy.
China does nothing that the US has not already done.
The reality is that the US has no business at all in Asia and China certainly has no desire to harm the United States economically. They are quite dependent on the American market for now, though that is changing as American consumer debt will continue to suppress any recovery. As American companies rely on foreign sales for profitability, economic recovery is clearly not happening.
Since the CFR has for its members the elite in economics, finance, industry, government and academia, it is the "ruling class." Therefore, its publications can be considered the official doctrine of this class. Therefore, this report's recommendations of "[intensifying] a consistent U.S. naval and air presence in the South and East China Seas" are now American policy.
The report, in many places, speaks of increasing US military capabilities on China's doorstep and using these as threats to force China out of the world stage in any way that "casts doubt on the US economic model."
Japan's military forces are also to be expanded greatly and the famous Constitutional provision preventing her projection abroad should be abandoned. The US wrote their Constitution and forced it upon them, they certainly can rewrite it now.
World War II began when FDR restricted Japan's access to its critical supplies of steel and oil. Japan never threatened the US and only wanted positive trade relations as she did to Asia what the US did to North America. This policy of restriction forced Tokyo to eventually take a hostile posture towards Washington.
We read in this official report:
"The United States should encourage these countries to develop a coordinated approach to constrict China's access to all technologies, including dual use, that can inflict "high leverage strategic harm." To establish a new technology regime toward China, Washington should enter into an immediate discussion with allies and friends with the aim of tightening restrictions on the sales of militarily critical technologies to China, including dual use technologies. This will obviously not be easy to accomplish, but the effort should get under way immediately (25)."So much of this is fantasy since so many nations are dependent on China.
The same nations see the US as too indebted to have much freedom of action. There is no future in the West as the EU continues to sink into poverty and oligarchy.
The CFR here, unsurprisingly, states that the TPP is essential to their goals. The demand of the ruling class is to force the Chinese to abandon all hopes of great power status and to admit the US as the only legitimate arbiter of important political decisions in the region. Apart from the rationale behind this, Peking, believing its long earned its rise to power, will certainly not accept it - nor should they.
Ideology also plays a role. Fighting the US is to fight the "liberal international system." They write, "China has sought to integrate both its Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) partners and its regional neighbors into economic ventures that rival those of the liberal international system. . . ." (16). To "cast doubt on the US economy model" is seen by the ruling class as identical with casting doubt on international financial liberalism.
That China's meteoric rise to power was done without a liberal order does not impress the authors. Perhaps, that's the root of the problem.
To that end, it has been prodding, and poking China with all kinds of sticks and goading it to take action. This process is accelerating, and each day it is getting worse and worse.
What the (American) ruling class is presently doing is attacking China in every way but open war.
China has no interests according to the regime, only the US empire does (or "financial liberalism"). The US is in no position to get itself into a war of attrition with a nuclear armed power. There is no support for any war in the US, nor is there money. In the report cited above, no mention is made of the billions and billions of dollars owned by the Chinese or the results of their flooding the market with them. This might suggest why the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are buying so much gold. China is being encircled and threatened, they have every moral right to rectify this situation militarily if necessary.
-SOTT
China has laid down “red lines” that will trigger armed conflict, and there the USA is (right now) dancing right on top of those “red lines” saying “nah nah nah” and sticking out it’s (figurative) tongue and making “raspberry sounds”.
Nah nah nah!
It is obvious, but I will spell it out.
Some very big and very bad things are being set up to occur with China. Very big. Very bad. And it will be very uncomfortable for all of us.
Russia
Meanwhile, you also have Russia.
Russia, and China are both aligned on many, many levels with the fundamental arrangements part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. There are those that disagree that China and Russia are conjoined twins. When I argue my points the opposing viewpoint has nothing to say. They haven’t encountered the information that I provide. they only spout off the Western media talking points; which is really just a fantasy world.
But Russia, you know, they too were being poked at and prodded with. And Russia moved up all of it’s forces and was “this close” to getting into a hot kinetic war. This was late last year into this one. The “West” pulled back. It disengaged, but did not stop. Instead billions of dollars in military equipment and supplies started to fly into the Ukraine and related areas all aimed towards Russia.
It is obvious, but I will spell it out.
Some very big and very bad things are being set up to occur with Russia.
There is no getting out of the present American Depression. Private sector debt is fast approaching $20 trillion, not including the massive interest to be added over the foreseeable future. Given that war with either Russia or China would be suicidal for the US – let alone both together – the only rational reading of the Regime’s provocation on both fronts is to unify the country for the sake of economic recovery.
I beg to differ. There's another reading. They are insane, don't know what they are doing, and / or are part of a death cult waiting for "the rapture". -MM
FDR did the same in 1941 against a stubborn Depression. Unfortunately, FDR had a unified nation, a basically moral people and a national, civic will. The national leadership was overwhelmingly seen as legitimate. Yes, it was abused and manipulated, ultimately destroying it, but it is something that the US today has none of.
The people of the US has no interest in a war with anyone, and certainly should not have any military presence in south Asia or the Baltics. These countries are more than willing to trade with the US, so the actual purpose can only be for exploitation.
Exploitation so to protect the massive investments ultimately destroying the US economy. This is corporate welfare of the worst kind.
The Americans, further, have no interest in who controls the South China Sea in the same way as she has no interest in the Japanese Co-Prosperity Sphere.
Japan's rise to power after 1900 made her the natural leader of East Asia. China is in the same position now. There's no moral issue one way or another with a regional hegemon.
Recently, The Philippines took China to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea over the issue. Any college sophomore should know that Manila would never take such a provocative action.
Sure enough, it was the US masquerading as the Philippines, suing China though the agency of Paul Reichler of the Boston law firm of Foley Hoag.
Of course, the American press took the State Department at its word as always. Since China sits on the Security Council, the “Philippine” victory was of no interest to them.
The UN has no authority in the area or anywhere else, so the “legal” defeat was ignored.
More recently, American arrogance towards President Duterte forced a rapprochement between China and the Philippines, showing yet against the irrationality of American foreign policy.
The Council on Foreign relations opined:
Because the American effort to 'integrate' China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia—and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally.
Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy (quoted from Cartalucci, 2016).
It’s difficult to decide which absurdity to tackle first.
It is, as Cartalucci says, “an open, modern proclamation of imperialism.”
This sort of domination is not about protecting sea lanes and ensuring open trade. That was and will never be an issue. It is about exploiting the region directly.
The problem is that China is not Iraq.
China is a first world power more than willing and able to defeat a demoralized, broke and military overstretched US.
To put it crudely, China is becoming, along with Russia, a huge part of the resistance against western imperialism in the area.
They seek to negotiate with the US and western banks as equals, not suppliants.
But, alas, the US responds with even greater threats.
Today, the heroic President Duterte of The Philippines has won his drug war. China has sought an alliance with him, one that he has granted. The mask was off when the US violently condemned his victory against a war that US has never sought to win.
Like ISIS, the West supports the drug trade while pretending to (very poorly) fight it. Very rapidly, the China-Filipino alliance has taken the moral high ground on these issues.
More concretely, China’s power and economic might make her claim to the sea a matter of de facto right.
She is already in the process of developing the islands at issue, already granting her sovereignty over the Paracel and Spratley chains.
Doing so is no threat to the US or anyone else, unless of course, the agenda is to maintain a colonial empire there.
China’s territorial claim
Comment: Duterte's shift towards China makes geopolitical sense. The Philippines is tired of being under the Empire's boot. Friendship between the two countries solves many trade and defense headaches for both. No doubt Duterte's actions will eventually embolden other oppressed countries.
Suddenly, the US tried to be allies with Vietnam – who China had fought in the region twice in the 1970s and 1980s – and engages in naval drills with Japan.
Update: Vietnam is neutral and will not join the USA in any conflict with it's neighbor. -MM
The Philippines were a willing participant of these naval drills just last year, but Duterte has learned his lesson. The majority of the American navy is now engaged in the South China Sea.
It is highly doubtful that Australia and the Philippines want war with the Chinese.
Vietnam is no longer in any position to challenge Beijing as it was in the 1980s. For no clear US interest, the USA regime is demanding war with China.
This process is Identical with what happened in 1940 and most of 1941 against Japan, the US is in the process of cutting off China’s raw materials shipments. Yet, the foe they will face is not a small regional hegemon facing a unified industrial giant.
It is a major (if not THE major) world power facing a dying and collapsing empire.
The ultimate purpose is to weaken the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
Before World War I, the British eyes Berlin and Petrograd with a jealous rage. They and they alone have the right to rule the world. In the 1930s, London had the temerity to condemn Japan’s invasion of Manchuria as an attack on national sovereignty, a statement bordering on the insanely and outrageously funny. Joachim Hagopian writes presciently:
Empire's naked neocolonial aggression involves exploiting unlimited energy resources anywhere in the world while neutralizing key enemies as America's predatory, vested self-interest (or more accurately the parasitic ruling elite's self-interest only, clearly neither America's nor Americans' nor any Asian countries'). Because the world's only superpower has gotten away with raping and pillaging the planet at will for decades, Empire is banking on its retaining its global unipolar dominance for years to come by more of the same tactics (Hagopian,2016).
One of the more absurd and contemptible statements was made by Mark Morris of the US National War College. This plan to isolate and destroy China is at least as old as 2013. He writes long before these events: wrote in November 2013:
War starts and the United States and its allies begin offshore controlling.
Chinese seaborne imports and exports are reduced drastically. Factory production drops and millions of workers are laid off; soon the numbers soar to tens of millions and perhaps a hundred million. . .
When jobs are not found, they start protesting. . .
Now the Chinese Communist Party is faced with tens of millions of unemployed protesters. It will try to blame some enemy that can't be seen. . .
Not believing the party, discontent grows and protests increase.
The Chinese Communist Party orders the People's Liberation Army to break the blockade, but the People's Liberation Army-Navy replies that China doesn't have the right type of Navy for that and are unable to comply with the orders.
Discontent grows and protests become more worrisome to party leaders.
The Chinese Communist Party declares that it has taught the foreign dog a lesson and seeks a [peace] conference at Geneva. (Morris, 2013)
The level of sophomoric arrogance and simplified analysis is astounding, though not surprising.
All China has to do is dump American dollars and refuse to finance American debt.
Without cheap Chinese goods, WalMart is finished.
Ok. This author is getting some things really wrong.
China exports to the world. Not just to the USA.
Exports to the USA pre-Covid were at 11%. Now they are in the 4 to 5% range.
Further, the really cheap goods are made in Mexico and SE Asia. Not in China. China makes the high tech and high quality goods for Korea, Japan, and Germany. -MM
That the Chinese population would not blame the west for instigating this war is not even mentioned.
The above “analysis” is merely a fantasy, a world where everyone has the same assumptions; it is a world made up of minds as isolated from reality and opposition as his own. The problem is if this fantasy is mistaken for political analysis.
Ukraine has been taken from an industrial powerhouse and turned into a fourth-world backwater through the deliberate engineering of liberal western imperialism.
Unfortunately for Washington, there are plenty of places quite unwilling to become minor, impoverished cog’s in New York’s great machine.
As the West cannot sell its own industrial goods (and other commodities), such competition seems to it wasteful. It places more downward pressure on prices and greater competition for resources.
Today, major capitalist enterprises have set up shop abroad and use cheaper labor to boost profits by “importing” those back into the US. This means the same mechanisms of protection the system offers domestically must be extended overseas.
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh writes that globalization
...tend[s] to deprive the outsourcing countries of production and employment at home, they also bring the economic structure of host countries under the rules and regulations of neoliberal economics.
Entrenchment of neoliberal economics on a global scale, however, requires more than the traditional armies or military forces of imperialism. Perhaps more importantly, it also requires new, metaphorical soldiers or armies such as WTO, the IMF, central banks, credit rating agencies, and the like—hence, the new imperialism: imperialism based on universal or generalized dispossession (Hossein-Zadeh, 2016).
The total globalization of production and distribution means that the highest possibly profits can be earned when all transaction costs have been minimized.
Now, the assumptions of that statement are many, but it is the underlying axiom of globalization in general. It implies, however, that states must have their place in the new order and retain that place. One piece out of place can bring the edifice to crisis.
That gets worse if that piece is the size of China.
More generally, he writes, this irrational sort of militarization derives from what he terms “parasitic imperialism.” Its marks are that it
Redistributes national income or resources in favor of the wealthy; (2) undermines the formation of public capital (both physical and human); (3) weakens national defenses against natural disasters; (4) accumulates national debt and threatens economic/financial stability; (5) spoils external or foreign markets for non-military U.S. transnational capital; (6) undermines civil liberties and democratic values; and (7) fosters a dependence on or addiction to military spending and, therefore, leads to an spiraling vicious circle of war and militarism (Hossein-Zadeh, 2007).
“Parasitic imperialism” is the result of a world that has, at least for now, made its peace with dependency.
Local elites are required to promote the ideologies favored by finance capital, invariably liberal democracy with a strong focus on squashing non-liberal dissent.
This is quite consistent with liberalism, as the French Revolution and all its bastard children have shown.
Jacobinism is the mother of (modern) imperialism since it enshrines self-interest and ontological nominalism as the center of all things. Self-interest justifies the financial oligarchy’s ability to outbid smaller rivals for near-zero interest rates.
With this tremendous advantage, oligarchy is assured, since smaller borrowers now must borrow at much higher rates from those at the top of the pyramid.
Buying assets, especially troubled ones, is much easier for oligarchy and, with the taxpayers forced to bail them out, rational decision-making is not important.
Irrationality aside, “free markets,” based on self-interest, have no ideological means to oppose the purchase of the government or monetary policy by private actors.
Building a financial structure that uses debt to leverage more debt – that is, until the chances of repayment become quite thin – is also rational for those with the ability to profit from it.
Over time, the bad loans and the assets to which they are attached become the property of the regime and those failing to make their payments are conveniently labeled as failures.
More importantly, it represents short term profit unrelated to actual production.
Most profits of the Regime’s billionaires comes from debt and speculation, not on creation.
It is, as Paul Craig Roberts terms it, the “looting phrase” of modern capitalism.
Beyond profit that derives from the expropriation of surplus labor, another, increasingly more important source of profit is the result of mass leveraging of assets.
Americans are forced to borrow constantly to maintain even a basic standard of living.
This means that a part of their income – possibly a substantial part – is then transferred to finance capital (Hossein-Zadeh, 2016a).
But what does this have to do with the US navy in the South China Sea?
This analysis is really the foundation for imperial parasitism, overstretch and endless war. Ukraine was colonized as a means to a) ensure the transfer of her assets to the west as debt service; b) to encircle and threaten Russia and c) to deindustrialize the country, rendering Ukraine a raw materials producer for the regime.
As the US economy sinks deeper into Depression (despite the laughably phony statistics from Washington), war and imperial exploitation are the only means to create “value.” What the western bankers have done in Ukraine can, in theory, be done in the US.
Combining public and private sector debt means that the entire American economic grid can be sold off and still not pay the principle. Soon, China’s control over America’s debt, her growing population, military sophistication and expansion into Central Asia and Africa will dethrone the US as the “world’s only superpower.”
Russian gold reserves from early 2013 increased by almost 150%.
By Fall of 2015, Russia owned 1352 tons of gold. China now owns nearly 2000 tons, radically increasing their holdings starting in early 2015. This is an important sign that de-dollarization is around the corner.
Warfare, at present, is likely the only means for the Regime to stop this trend.
The very existence of a drive to de-dollarization might be sufficient to cause a run on this weakened institution.
The New Silk Road project, as many have said recently, is a radical restructuring of the globe’s economy.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the most significant political organization in the East, is not mentioned in the mindless “presidential election debates” in the US because it is the organization of most of the world’s population against US imperialism.
China is building its own financial infrastructure, creating a new banking regime without western and Jewish interest. They are offering credit to Africa without the demands and political ideology of the west.
Like a wounded animal, the US elite will lash out…
Iran
Meanwhile, there are events going on regarding the “West” with Iran.
Now, Iran is also part of the “Shanghai Cooperation Organization”, and we can see that the events with Russia, China and Iran are all directed to attack this SCO and destroy it in warfare.
Perhaps a map might help explain things better.
Here’s an out of date map that I pulled off the internet. The key point is that Iran is no longer “observer status” but is actually a full “member” of the SCO.
In this article, we will discuss some of the troop buildups and movements toward Iran. And this is important because, if you look at the BIG picture, you can clearly see a pattern emerging.
The Pattern that is emerging.
The United States is planning to attack the SEO; which is the vast bulk of Asia.
It’s an insane, dick move.
It’s pure folly to take on Russia alone. Intense idiocy to take on China alone. And sheer madness to take on a war against Iran.
But there you have it. The monkeys that “pull the levers” in Washington DC are all crazed psychopaths, and they want to seemingly start a war that will destroy everything and everything with it. Fools!
Let’s talk about Iran
This is a comment off of Saker. I guess it comes from someone’s Twitter feed.
Almost none of these incidents and “chess moves” have been reported by Western media. Reading all this, does it feel like the approach to the WW3 Event horizon is escalating??
It seems chess pieces are being moved everywhere….. so much is happening at the Azerbaijan Armenia Iran Turkey border areas.
Syria is still in play.
And Israel has strengthened ties with Azerbaijan (and Saudi).
Look at what happened in October 2021…
One month at the Iran, Azerbaijan and Armenian border.
(Includes a side serve of Turkey ~Syria)
As told in tweets by Kiev located
“proud Cossack”Fuat @lilygrutcher
Sept 28
Israel delivered $2 billion worth of new weapons and munitions to Azerbaijan in the last two months.
Most of them are now deployed at the Iranian border.
Sept 30
Turkish-Ukrainian agreement on construction of Bayraktar TB2 center in Kyiv is signed. (Pic Includes Zelensky)
>Former Armenian defence minister David Tonoyan arrested in Yerevan
>Turkish Army is clearing mines near Iranian border in order to facilitate the deployment of Turkish troops at Iranian border.
Three Turkish TB2’s are in the air right now near Iranian border.
>Iranian military say Baku is in the range of Iranian artillery deployed at Azeri border.
>Iranian air defence systems put on high alert.
>High rank IRGC official Mahmoud Gazizi calls Azeris “Zionist prostitutes.”
>7 or 8 Iranian Airforce helicopters deployed at Azeri border
>16th Army of Iran (Qazvin Army) on their way to Nakhijevan borders. Nakhijevan is an Azeri enclave between Turkey, Iran and Armenia
>Iranian Army to start another huge drills near Azeri borders tomorrow.
>Iran is creating and financing pro-Iranian military Husayniun group (“Islamic Resistance of Azerbaijan”) in Azerbaijan.
Azeri government should act quickly and toughly if they don’t want their own Azeri Hezbollah.
Oct 1
The length of Iranian Army convoy (tanks, armored vehicles, artillery guns) deployed near Azerbaijan for tomorrow’s drills reaches 8 km. Biggest Iranian drills in the last 20 years.
>Turkey and Aze are keen to create a Zangezur corridor through Armenian territory which would connect mainland Azerbaijan to its enclave Nakhijevan.
This corridor would be enormously profitable for both Turkey and Azerbaijan, and even for Armenia.
§§§. teshub1 @teshub12: replies:
the corridor would not be profitable for Armenia at all.
It would literally be a highway through Armenian territory, connecting Nakh. to Az. but ceded to Azerbaijan.
This was not part of the agreement signed last year by AZ, AR, and RU. A highway under Russian control was.
>Fuat:
Meanwhile Armenia, bound to centuries-long dogmas, so far refuses to authorize this project.
@teshub1 replies:
§§§. You’re a total fool if you think Armenia literally ceding territory in its most strategically important but geographically insecure region to its two main geopolitical rivals would be good for Armenia.
Fuat:
Iran fears that, sooner or later, Armenia will bow to Turkish pressure and agree for the corridor.
If constructed, this corridor would cut Iran from direct routes to Caucasus and Europe. That’s what makes them so nervous.
Oct 1:
UNCONFIRMED reports of first clashes between Iranian and Azeri troops on the border about 2 hrs ago. 1 Iranian and 2 Azeri soldiers wounded.
>Now reports come that the Azeris pull their troops back from near the border.
>6 Iranian armed drones flying over Azeri border.(vid)
>Massive transfer of Iranian troops by A400M’s to Azeri border, these minutes.
>All IRGC units in north-west Iran are put on high alert.
>Iranian airbases in Tehran and Hamadan in standby mode.
>Israeli ambassador to Azerbaijan George Deek.(video) announcement of project to promote and preserve Jewish heritage. American Ambassador to Azerbaijan and head of USAID program also attend.
*Deek States Azerbaijan has largest Jewish population in Muslim world.
>Including pic of “Mountain Jews Museum” official opening.
Oct 2
UNCONFIRMED.
Azeris shot down Iranian drone, about 4 hrs ago
>Deputy chief of staff of Armenia arrested in Yerevan.
Oct 3:
Azeri Army put on high alert.
>Reports of blast in Iranian military base in the west of Tehran, this afternoon.
>|Algeria recalled its ambassador from France for consultations.
>Reports that Iranian AH-1 Super Cobra mistakenly fired at Iranian troops during the ongoing drills near Azeri border. Three Iranian soldiers killed.
>Armenia opens its airspace for Iranian drones
>Armenia and Iran discuss the establishment of Iranian military bases on Armenian territory.
>|Algeria closes its airspace for French warplanes.
Oct 4
Who said Turkey is withdrawing from Idlib?
Quite the opposite: more and more Turkish Army convoys are entering Idlib every day. (Pic of convoy)
>Rebels captured Muhaberat (Assadite intelligence) agent in South Idlib.
>Rebel sniper killed a pro-Iranian militant in Jabel, West Aleppo.
>Turkish troops in Idlib are ordered to be ready to repel any attack by Assadite forces.
>Iranian parliament resolution, 2 hrs ago: “Inviolability of borders of our neighbors is Iran’s red line. If somebody tries to cross this line, Iran will act immediately.”
>Pro-Khamenei daily Vatan-e Emrooz decyphers the resolution adopted by the Iranian parliament: if Ankara and Baku invade Armenia, Iran will do the same immediately.
>Iranian drills finished. Troops retreat.
>Turkish-Azeri joint drills in Nakhijevan announced for 5-8 October.
>Newest and most advanced Israeli air defence system Arrow 3 to be delivered to Azerbaijan soon.
Iran snubbed again.
>Mass arrests of pro-Iranian elements in Baku.
Oct 5
IRGC deploys about 4,000 speed boats in the seaport of Ashtar near Azeri border.
>Turkish-Azeri-Georgian tripartite drills “Eternity” started in Georgia (country). Turkish and Azeri troops are arriving in Tbilisi.
>Israeli National Security Council warns of possible terrorist attacks on Israeli and Jewish objects across Azerbaijan.
>Georgia bans Iranian citizens and vehicles from entering its territory. Reason unknown so far.
Hundreds of Iranian trucks are currently stuck at Armenian-Georgian border.
>Mossad kidnapped an Iranian general in Syria to get info about Ron Arad, Israeli pilot captured by terrorists in 1986.
Waiting for details.
>Iran closes its border with Turkey in Kapikoy, East Turkey.
>Iranian pro-Khamenei center in Baku closed by local authorities without any explanation.
>Iran closes its airspace for Azeri warplanes going to Azeri enclave Nakhijevan.
>4 Turkish military cargo planes have arrived in Azerbaijan since this morning.
>Iranian agents’ attempt to blast a car of an Israeli embassy official in Baku, foiled by Azeri authorities.
Oct 6
President Aliyev poses with Israeli drone Harop.(pic)
>Saudi media say two Israeli Arrow 3 air defence systems are already deployed in Azerbaijan.
>Israel is ready to send its F-35s to Azerbaijan to help this country in case of Iranian military aggression.
(Israeli media)
>Arrow 3 is an only air defense system in the world capable of hitting targets in stratosphere, even low-orbit satellites.
Its missiles cost $2.2 million each.
>Pro-Iranian Huseiniyye mosque in Ganja, West Azerbaijan, closed by Azeri authorities.
>Azeri government starts monitoring all Iran-financed mosques in Azerbaijan
>General Aviv Kochavi, chief of general staff of IDF: “We will continue eliminating key figures of Iran and destroying its key military objects anywhere in Iran.”
>Turkish FM calls on NATO to give full membership for Ukraine and Georgia
>Iranian drone shot down over South Idlib.
>Biggest Turkish-Azeri joint drills announced for coming days. Turkey considers sending S-400 missile systems and F-16s to Azerbaijan to help this country against the possible Iranian aggression.
>Azerbaijan bans potatoes import from Iran.
>Turkish and Azeri warplanes flying very close to Iranian border during joint drills in Nakhijevan.
Oct 7
Armenia in the shock of news that Baku-Nakhijevan flight passed throuh Armenian air space this morning.
>Most probably, Iran is more shocked than Armenia is.
>Turkey closes four border checkpoints for Iranian vehicles.
(Includes map)
>Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are holding joint naval drills in the Gulf of Oman, not far from Iranian coasts.
>Ukrainian TB2 spotted last night over Iraq near Iranian border.
Is Ukraine joining anti-Iran coalition?
>Pakistan deploying troops near Iranian border after gunmen from Iranian side killed Pakistani soldier.
>Khamenei’s official representative left Baku this morning.
Oct 8
Turkish source reports of assasination attempt on Karabakhi president Arayik Haroutyunyan, 1 hr ago.
Haroutyunyan is reportedly wounded.
>Russian media say Turkish drones delivered to Ukraine are ready to be used against Donbass separatists, and Russia still has nothing to oppose them.
>Azerbaijan denied entry visa for Iranian co-president of joint Azeri-Iranian Trade Chamber.
>9 border checkpoints are closed for Iranian trucks in Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia
>Iranian FM requested his Turkish counterpart for a meeting.
Iran steps back.
>UK-based Elaph news agency says two Israeli Airforce F-35s have arrived in Azerbijan.
>Azerbaijan to open its embassy in Israel very soon
>Commander of the 3rd Turkish Army arrived in Azeri enclave Nakhijevan.
>The chairman of the Turkiah-Iranian Chamber of Commerce says Turkey stopped all kinds of trade with Iran in view of ongoing threats from Iran against Azerbaijan.
Oct 9
Another Turkish Army convoy entered Idlib.
>Turkish FM: “Ukraine’s application for observer status in Turcic Council will be considered on November 12.”
>Iranian FM Abdollahian now calls to his Azeri counterpart to arrange a meeting.
>Israeli air attack on T-4 airbase in Homs, 3 hrs ago.
>Four Israeli Airforce Il-76s landed in Baku since this morning.
>6 Russian spies arrested by Turkish police in Istanbul and Antalya this morning.
>Abolhassan Banisadr, Iran’s first president after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, died this morning in Paris at the age of 88.
>One of Russian-made S-200’s used by Syrian air defence to repel yesterday’s air attack on T-4 base landed in Iraq.
Oct 10
Turkish police arrested the head of Afghan mafia in Istanbul.
>Turkey is working on first laser drones.
>Armenian source says Azeri sniper killed a Karabakhi civilian in Martakert.
Armenia is furious that nearby Russian peacekeepers did nothing to prevent the killing of civilian.
Oct 14
Three huge blasts in Ganja, West Azerbaijan, this morning.
>8 Iranian agents arrested by Turkish security forces in Van, East Turkey.
>Israeli air attack on pro-Assad positions near Palmyra, these minutes. US and Uzbekistan to discuss deployment of US troops in Uzbekistan soon
>High ranking Taliban delegation arrived in Ankara.
Oct 17
Fierce clashes between Syrian Kurds and pro-Turkish rebels in Azaz, these minutes. 6 Kurds killed so far.
>Turkish drones monitoring Syrian border, these minutes.
>Turkish aircrafts throwing leaflets down to the town of Tel Rifaat calling the civilians to leave the place or to stay away from Kurdish positions.
>Pro-Assad positions south-west of Raqqa attacked about 3 hrs ago. Over 10 killed.
Oct 18
US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin to visit Ukraine and Georgia next week.
>Turkish Army ready for biggest operation in its history.
>Akinci drones probably in the air over Syrian border, these minutes.
This kind of drones have been never used in battle before. Their ammunition is thrice as much as that of TB2.
Oct 19
French ambassador to Belarus DEPORTED by Lukashenko.
Amother humiliation for Macron.
Oct 20
IRGC Headquarters in Homeyn, West Iran, attacked by unknown gunmen, Oct. 16. The commander of the headquarters killed.
>Two more high ranking Iranian spies arrested in Azerbaijan.
Iran’s spy netwotk in this country is crushed every day.
>Azeri source says Israeli instructors train Azeri military to handle newest Israeli drones in Ismailliyah, North Azerbaijan.
>Massive arrests of pro-Iranian agents continue across Azerbaijan.
4 local Hezbollah members arrested this morning. US granted access to 4 four more military bases in Greece. US has a total of 8 military bases in Greece now.
Oct21
Another Turkish Army convoy entered Idlib 30 min ago.
Oct 22
48 pro-Iranian elements arrested in Baku this morning.
Oct 23 Avigdor Liberman says the war with Iran is inevitable and not too far.
>Armed Azeri soldiers stole 150 sheeps from Armenian farmers today in Syunik, South Armenia, Armenian ombudsman says.
>Massive arrival of US troops in Alexandroupolis, North-East Greece.
>Massive fire in a power station in Bandar Abbas, South Iran.
Oct 25
Coup in Sudan
Oct 26
First NATO airbase opened in Latvia, yesterday.
>Education minister of Armenia says they do not plan to open Russian schools in the country.
In neighboring Georgia too, there is no public Russian school anymore.
Oct 27
President Erdogan arrived in Baku.
>Iran’s gas station system completely paralyzed by hacker attack.
>Reports that Ukrainian Army started to use TB2 drones against pro-Russian separatists in Donbass.(drone footage)
>Russian Army convoy attacked in Syria.
§§§ Mike Schiebel
@mike_schiebel… Who would be suspect to attacking Russia?
Fuat: Pro-Turkish rebels.
>Ukrainian military say they need at least 50 Bayraktar drones to completely destroy separatists in Russian-occupied Donbass.
>Iranian officials say today’s cyber attack against National Iranian Oil Products Distribution Company “was conducted by a foreign country”. UAE ready to allow Israel to use their airbases to attack Iran.
>Azeri officials say Zangezur corridor through Armenian territory to connect mainland Azerbaijan to Turkey will be ready in 2023.
>President Erdogan: “One day you will just get in your car in Baku and drive straight to Istanbul through Zangezur corridor.”
>Pro-Iranian Hashdi-Shaabi headquarter attacked by IS in Diyala, Iraq. 14 killed.
>Huge Turkish Army convoy of 130 armored vehicles entered Idlib, 3 hrs ago.
>In total, three Turkish Army convoys of over 400 armored vehicles entered Idlib in the last 6 hours.(videos)
>Arizona-born Rep. Jeff Flake, 58, appointed new US Ambassador to Turkey.
>Reports that Ukranian artillery units are redeploying closer to the frontline in Donbass.
Oct 28
First Israeli plane landed in Saudi Arabia, yesterday.
>Ukrainian Bayraktars in the air again.
>Air attack sirens in Russian-occupied Donbass.
>Taiwanese President confirms the presence of US troops in Taiwan.
>China to open its second military base in Tajikistan.
Oct 29
Huge deployment of Turkish troops in North Syria.
>Fierce clashes in Donbass, these minutes.
>Intense flight of Turkish drones over M4 road, these minutes.
Putting it all together
It’s all “chess pieces”. And the USA / “The West” all seem to be playing an oppressive role in it.
America to fight Iran / Russia / China (The SCO block).
Americans are at a fever pitch right now, and the window of opportunity can only be maintained for a year or two tops.
Now, instead of chatting up a storm and throwing out facts and figures, I am just going to lay down a map. Let’s see where all these provocations and “chess moves” are taking place.
This is what the United States is doing right now…
Red arrows indicate the provocation vectors. Yellow arrows indicate provocation vectors that have ended or been suppressed.
So what do you think will be the end result of all this? Are you all going to tell me that China, Russia or Iran are “saber rattling”? What the FUCK does all this look like?
Do you think that everything will “blow over” and things will be “ok”?
Do you think that Russia, China, Iran and the rest of Asia will continue to “sit by” and do nothing?
Russia and China are very close allies. If you don’t believe me, then read what XI Peng, and Putin’s comments on this subject.
Or, perhaps you think that America has every right to poke China; every right to poke Russia; every right to poke Iran? As Communism is bad, and democracy is good? Right?
Just like the “news” media says…
No they didn't.
They made a formal declaration at the United Nations and claimed that it was a bio-weapon launched by John Bolton and the Trump administration on the most important Chinese holiday of the year.
They also provided videos and biopsy reports of the military personnel at Wuhan doing all sorts of strange things. Like spitting in fish tanks. Rubbing their hands all over cucumbers, eggplant, apples, corn, lettuce, and mangoes.
Not a single event was reported inside of America.
But of course this screen capture is from FOX “news”.
This is the big picture. Soak it up. And drink it in. Soon, there will be a very HARSH slap back.
I would not advise anyone to be inside a large American city next year.
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.
It's worth noting that the Chinese Orbital Hypersonic Missile development means the UK is not geographically invulnerable in a conflict scenario with China. It might want to rethink the assumption it can just prod at China in the Pacific from a distance...
— Tom Fowdy (@Tom_Fowdy) October 17, 2021
This is going to be a long article.
I have taken various highlighted articles of interest and strung them together into a unified whole to give the reader the MOST ACCURATE picture concerning what is going on with all this flood of “hate China”, and “War is good” stuff spewing out of the United States today.
Well, if not China, how about invading Russia?
Russia says NO!
And if not invade Russia, then how about invading Australia?
Yes. these people are seriously off their trolleys.
Do you really want to know what is going on? Are the Chinese going to siphon off your “vital bodily” fluids and gobble up the world? And why are you forced to endure lies and distortions in favor of war?
It is a distraction, as MM as repeatedly stated, or is it something more?
What is going on?
Introduction
Ok, I’m minding my own business. I have just made myself a cup of coffee and went to my study and fired up both of my computers. (One, my active computer is running Lunix and I am doing driver installation activities. While the other is my “old computer” and it is limping along with a malware saturated Chinese OS.)
I fire up those “puppies” (computers) and “right off the bat“, this is what I see…
With each passing week, it looks like World War III — between America and China — is coming sooner than we think. It’s not going to be fought with bullets or aircraft carriers, although the Chinese are building up their military in an aggressive and threatening way.
This will more likely be an all-out economic war for global supremacy. The yuan versus the dollar. The Nasdaq versus the Shanghai Stock Exchange.
Meanwhile, America is asleep at the switch — at least, the Biden administration is. This is the worst possible time to be raising tax rates on American companies (Our business tax rates would be higher than China’s under President Joe Biden’s plan!), dismantling American energy (at a time when China is running 1,000 dirty coal plants with dozens more in construction), and running up the national debt (with China a major purchaser of the bonds).
Love Donald Trump or hate him, he was a president who put America first and recognized the predatory nature of the Chinese regime. He got tough with President Xi Jinping and overturned one-sided trade deals. His strategy was to do what former President Ronald Reagan did to win the Cold War: Make America tremendously prosperous by building up our strategic industries in a way that the Soviet Union or China couldn’t compete with.
The danger is that we now have a president in Biden who thinks that climate change is a bigger threat to the world than the Maoists in Beijing.
And make no mistake about it; the communists are back in charge in China. Jinping has basically announced himself to be president for life, as democracy and free elections fly out the window. China is also sprinting back to command and control fascist government and industry “cooperation.” That’s a model that will eventually implode, but as we learned from the Soviet menace, they can do a lot of damage to peace and prosperity in the meantime.
It’s no accident that China’s economy and stock market are faltering. In the last year, as the U.S. stock market has risen by about 20% (thanks to Operation Warp Speed), China’s Shanghai stock market went down 15%. They are sprinting toward socialism faster than we are… for now.
The Chinese stock market jitters reflect global investors’ irritation with the more frequent political interventions in business affairs. As Foreign Affairs magazine recently put it regarding these iron-fisted interferences into the business activities of its largest companies: “Xi has placed China on a risky trajectory, one that threatens the (free market) achievements of his predecessors.”
In short, events of recent months both militarily and economically confirm that the modern Maoists are firmly entrenched in Beijing, and capitalism is losing. Jinping’s administration simply doesn’t get what George H.W. Bush once so eloquently described as “that freedom thing.” Militant social controls and restraints on individual liberty are now being matched with economic controls on Chinese megacorporations that are trying to vie for industry supremacy in technology, biology, manufacturing and transportation. Is all of this reminiscent of Japan circa 1939?
What is the Biden administration’s response to these threats? The massive $5 trillion spend, tax and borrow bill he is steamrolling through Congress will impair American economic supremacy almost overnight. Under Trump, tax rate reductions led to a $1 trillion infusion of capital from around the world, coming back to these shores to build up our industrial might. Biden’s tax policies will have the reverse effect: deindustrialization.
We are, as a nation, now back to importing tens of billions of dollars of energy from OPEC and Russia instead of selling the hundreds of years’ worth of oil, gas and coal. Do the progressives who now run Washington really believe we are going to defeat the rising Communist China threat by building windmills? Do they think that redistributing income and wealth makes more sense than creating it?
Will we be in any economic shape to repel China’s militaristic advances in the South China Sea, in India, in Africa and perhaps on to the shores of Taiwan with the policies in place in Washington today? Doubtful.
The war with China is on. Right now, only one country is fighting — China. Let’s not let another Afghanistan catastrophe happen in Asia.
…
Sigh.
Right. Rigggghhhhht.
Only China is fighting. China’s economy is collapsing. China is taking over American industries with an iron-fist. The failures of America are all China’s fault. Yada. Yada. Yada.
Sure.
In your dreams.
In my nightmares, but in these assholes dreams.
They haven’t a clue as to what they are dealing with. These money grabbing, politically sensitive nitwits are leading the United States towards certain destruction. But you all have heard that before.
Right?
Notice how the author weaves politics with the global economic weight of the rest of the world. Nope you dunder-heads. Politics is meaningless, useless and dangerous when mixed with anything outside of it’s natural venue. Or haven’t you ever tried to discuss politics at the Thanksgiving table with strangers? Huh?
China doesn’t play politics.
China plays HARD-BALL.
Be careful for what you wish for. If China really wanted to fight instead of the dance-moves that it is currently engaged in, it would gallop at full “break neck” speed, and Lordy! You do not want to be in their way.
I’ll tell you what.
Understanding the world 101
I constantly tell my interns that Business = Relationships.
And it is very, very true. The most successful businesses have been built upon strong foundational relationships.
In a like way, Politics = Money.
When anyone is so enraptured about Politics you know that they are talking about money. And in particular, how THEY get money, keep money, acquire money, save money or manipulate money.
With this in mind, we can see that the author of the previous article was mixing Geo-Politics with China. And that tells us all we need to know. All this hate-China narrative is all about money.
And all this Drumbeat of hate-China is all about…
Money!
And what to they wish for?
War!
Idiotic fools.
If you pay any attention to history, wars ALWAYS, and without exception, originate from the wealthy class. In general, the wealthier the individuals are, the more expansive, brutal and awful the wars they generate, will be.
So who is driving the narrative for the USA to fight China in a war?
At MintPress, we have been at the forefront of exposing how Middle Easterndictatorships and weapons contractors have been funneling money into think tanks and political action committees, keeping up a steady drumbeat for more war and conflict around the world. Yet one little-discussed nation that punches well above its weight in spending cash in Washington is Taiwan.
By studying Taiwan’s financial reports, MintPress has ascertained that the semi-autonomous island of 23 million people has, in recent years, given out millions of dollars to many of the largest and most influential think tanks in the United States. This has coincided with a strong upsurge in anti-China rhetoric in Washington, with report after report warning of China’s economic rise and demanding that the U.S. intervene more in China-Taiwan disputes.
These think tanks are filled with prominent figures from both parties and have the ears of the most powerful politicians in Washington. It is in their offices that specialists draw up papers and incubate ideas that become tomorrow’s policies. They also churn out experts who appear in agenda-setting media, helping to shape and control the public debate on political and economic issues.
Twenty years ago, a group of neoconservative think tanks like the Project for a New American Century, funded by foreign governments and weapons manufacturers, used their power to push for disastrous wars in the Middle East. Now, a new set of think tanks, staffed with many of those same experts who provided the intellectual basis for those invasions, is working hard to convince Americans that there is a new existential threat: China.
A fistful of dollars
In 2019, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO) — for all intents and purposes, the Taiwanese embassy — donated between $250,000 and $499,999 to the Brookings Institute, commonly identified as the world’s most influential think tank. Taiwanese tech companies have also given large sums to the organization. In turn, Brookings Institute staff like Richard C. Bush (a former member of the National Intelligence Council and a U.S. national intelligence officer for East Asia) vociferously champion the cause of Taiwanese nationalists and routinelycondemn Beijing’s attempts to bring the island more closely under control.
Last week, Brookings held an event called “Taiwan’s quest for security and the good life,” which began with the statement that “Taiwan is rightly praised for its democracy. Elections are free, fair, and competitive; civil and political rights are protected.” It went on to warn that the “most consequential” challenge to the island’s liberty and prosperity is “China’s ambition to end Taiwan’s separate existence.”
According to another organization’s latest financial disclosure, TECRO also gave a six-figure sum to the Atlantic Council, a think tank closely associated with NATO. It is unclear what the Atlantic Council did with that money, but what is certain is that they gave a senior fellowship to Chang-Ching Tu, an academic employed by the Taiwanese military to teach at the country’s National Defense University. In turn, Tu authored Atlantic Council reports describing his country as a “champion [of] global democracy,” and stating that “democracy, freedom and human rights are Taiwan’s core values.” A menacing China, however, is increasing its military threats, so Taiwan must “accelerate its deterrence forces and strengthen its self-defense capabilities.” Thus he advises that the U.S. must work far more closely with Taiwan’s military, conducting joint exercises and moving towards a more formal military alliance. In 2020, the U.S. sold $5.9 billion worth of arms to the island, making it the fifth-largest recipient of American weaponry last year.
Other Taiwan-employed academics have chided the West on the pages of the Council’s website for its insufficient zeal in “deter[ring] Chinese aggression” against the island. “A decision by the United States to back down” — wrote Philip Anstrén, a Swedish recipient of a fellowship from the Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs — “could damage the credibility of U.S. defense guarantees and signal that Washington’s will to defend its allies is weak.” Anstrén also insisted that “Europe’s future is on the line in the Taiwan Strait.” “Western democratic nations have moral obligations vis-à-vis Taiwan,” he added on his blog, “and Western democracies have a duty to ensure that [Taiwan] not only survives but also thrives.”
The reason this is important is that the Atlantic Council is an enormously influential think tank. Its board of directors is a who’s-who in foreign policy statecraft, featuring no fewer than seven former CIA directors. Also on the board are many of the architects of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and James Baker. When organizations like this begin beating the war drums, everybody should take note.
Perhaps the most strongly anti-Beijing think tank in Washington is the conservative Hudson Institute, an organization frequented by many of the Republican Party’s most influential figures, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former Vice-President Mike Pence and Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton. The words “China” or “Chinese” appear 137 times in Hudson’s latest annual report, so focused on the Asian nation are they. Indeed, reading their output, it often appears they care about little else but ramping up tensions with Beijing, condemning it for its treatment of Hong Kong, Taiwan and Uyghur Muslims, and warning of the economic and military threat of a rising China.
Over the years, Hudson’s efforts have been sustained by huge donations from TECRO. The Hudson Institute does not disclose the exact donations any sources give, but their annual reports show that TECRO has been on the highest tier of donors ($100,000+) every year since they began divulging their sponsors in 2015. In February, Hudson Senior Fellow Thomas J. Duesterberg wrote an op-ed for Forbes entitled “The Economic Case for Prioritizing a U.S.-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement,” in which he extolled Taiwan’s economy as modern and dynamic and portrayed securing closer economic ties with it as a no-brainer. Hudson employees have also traveled to Taiwan to meet and hold events with leading foreign ministry officials there.
The Hudson Institute also recently partnered with the more liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) to host an event with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, who took the opportunity to make a great number of inflammatory statements about the “ever more challenging threats to free and democratic societies” China poses; applaud the U.S.’ actions on Hong Kong; and talk about how Taiwan honors and celebrates those who died at the Tiananmen Square massacre. TECRO gave the CAP between $50,000 and $100,000 last year.
It is the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), however, that appears to receive the most Taiwanese money. According to its donor list, Taiwan gives as much money to it as the United States does — at least $500,000 last year alone. Yet all of the Taiwanese government money is put into CSIS’s regional studies (i.e., Asia) program. Like Hudson employees, the CSIS calls for a free trade agreement with Taiwan and has lavished praise on the nation for its approach to tackling disinformation, describing it as a “thriving democracy and a cultural powerhouse.” Although acknowledging that the reports were paid for by TECRO, CSIS insists that “all opinions expressed herein should be understood to be solely those of the authors and are not influenced in any way by any donation.” In December, the CSIS also held a debate suggesting that “[w]ithin the next five years, China will use significant military force against a country on its periphery,” exploring what the U.S. response to such an action should be.
Like the Atlantic Council, the CSIS organization is stacked with senior officials from the national security state. Its president and CEO is former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, while Henry Kissinger — former secretary of state and the architect of the Vietnam War — also serves on its council.
The CSIS accepts money from the Global Taiwan Institute and the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD) as well. The former is a rather shadowy pro-Taiwanese group that appears not to disclose its funding sources. The latter is a government-funded organization headed by former Taiwanese President You Si-kun. Every year, the TFD publishes a human rights report on China, the latest of which claims that “the Chinese Communist Party knows no bounds when it comes to committing serious human rights violations” — accusing it of “taking the initiative” in “promoting a new Cold War over the issue of human rights” and trying to “replace the universal standing of human rights values around the world.” Ultimately, the report concludes, China “constitutes a major challenge to democracy and freedom in the world.”
The TFD has also been a major funder of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a far-right pressure group that insists that Communism has killed over 100 million people worldwide. Last year, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation added all global COVID-19 fatalities to the list of Communist-caused deaths on the basis that the virus started in China. The Foundation also employs Adrian Zenz, a German evangelical theologian who is the unlikely source of many of the most controversialandcontested claims about Chinese repression in Xinjiang province.
“It would be naive to believe that Taiwan’s funding of think tanks is not pushing them to take pro-Taiwan or anti-China positions,” Ben Freeman, the director of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy, told MintPress, adding:
After all, why would Taiwan keep funding think tanks that are critical of Taiwan? There’s a Darwinian element to foreign funding of think tanks that pushes foreign government funding to think tanks that write what that foreign government wants them to write. Taiwan is no exception to this rule.”
TECRO is not just sponsoring American think tanks, however. It has also given funds to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), a hawkish and controversial group described as “the think tank behind Australia’s changing view of China.” The country’s former ambassador in Beijing described ASPI as “the architect of the China threat theory in Australia” while Senator Kim Carr of Victoria denounced them as working hand-in-hand with Washington to push “a new Cold War with China.” ASPI was behind Twitter’s decision last year to purge more than 170,000 accounts sympathetic to Beijing from its platform.
“We must be ready to fight our corner as Taiwan tensions rise,” ASPI wrote in January, having previously castigated the West for being “no longer willing to defend Taiwan.”
ASPI — like Brookings, the Atlantic Council and others — are directly funded by weapons manufacturers, all of whom also have a direct interest in promoting more wars around the world. Thus, if the public is not careful, certain special interests might be helping move the United States towards yet another international conflict.
While the situation outlined above is concerning enough, the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative’s research has shown that around one-third of think tanks still do not provide any information whatsoever about their funding, and very few are completely open about their finances. Freeman maintains that, while there is nothing inherently wrong with foreign governments funding Western think tanks, the lack of transparency is seriously problematic, explaining:
This raises a lot of questions about the work they’re doing. Are their secret funders saying what the think tank can do in a pay-for-play scheme? Are the funders buying the think tanks silence on sensitive issues? Without knowing the think tank’s funders, policymakers and the public have no idea if the think tank’s work is objective research or simply the talking points of a foreign government.”
Freeman’s study of the Taiwanese lobby found that seven organizations registered as Taiwan’s foreign agents in the U.S. Those organizations, in turn, contacted 476 Members of Congress (including almost 90% of the House), as well as five congressional committees. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was their most frequent contact, the Californian being contacted 34 times by Taiwanese agents. Pelosi has been a great supporter of Taiwanese nationalists, successfully promoting pro-Taiwan legislation and proudly announcing that the U.S. “stands with Taiwan.”
Foreign agents working on behalf of Taiwan also made 143 political contributions to U.S. politicians, with former Alabama Senator Doug Jones the lead recipient (Pelosi was third).
Losing China, regaining Taiwan?
The reports listed above understand the dispute as purely a matter of Chinese belligerence against Taiwan and certainly do not consider U.S. military actions in the South China Sea as aggressive in themselves. That is because the world of think tanks and war planners sees the United States as owning the planet and having a remit to act anywhere on the globe at any time.
To this day, U.S. planners bemoan the “loss of China” in 1949 (a phrase that presupposes the United States owned the country). After a long and bloody Second World War, Communist resistance forces under Mao Tse-tung managed to both expel the Japanese occupation and overcome the U.S.-backed Kuomintang (nationalist) force led by Chang Kai-shek. The United States actually invaded China in 1945, with 50,000 troops working with the Kuomintang and even Japanese forces in an attempt to suppress the Communists. However, by 1949, Mao’s army was victorious; the United States evacuated and Chang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan.
The Kuomintang ruled the island for 40 years as a one-party state and remains one of the two major political groups to this day. The war between the Communists and the Kuomintang never formally ended, and Taiwan has now lived through 70 years of estrangement from the mainland. Polls show a majority of Taiwanese now favor full independence, although a large majority still personally identify as Chinese.
While many Taiwanese welcome an increased U.S. presence in the region, Beijing certainly does not. In 2012, President Barack Obama announced the U.S.’ new “Pivot to Asia” strategy, moving forces from the Middle East towards China. Today, over 400 American military bases encircle it.
In recent months, the United States has also taken a number of provocative military actions on China’s doorstep. In July, it conducted naval exercises in the South China Sea, with warships and naval aircraft spotted just 41 nautical miles from the coastal megacity of Shanghai, intent on probing China’s coastal defenses. And in December, it flew nuclear bombers over Chinese vessels close to Hainan Island. Earlier this year, the head of Strategic Command made his intentions clear, stating that there was a “very real possibility” of war against China over a regional conflict like Taiwan. China, for its part, has also increased its forces in the region, carrying out military exercises and staking claims to a number of disputed islands.
A new Director of National Intelligence (DNI) report notes that China is the U.S.’ “unparalleled priority,” claiming that Beijing is making a “push for global power.” “We expect that friction will grow as Beijing steps up attempts to portray Taipei as internationally isolated and dependent on the mainland for economic prosperity, and as China continues to increase military activity around the island,” it concludes.
In an effort to stop this, Washington has recruited allies into the conflict. Australian media are reporting that their military is currently readying for war in an effort to force China to back down, while last week President Joe Biden met with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga to shore up a united front against Beijing vis-a-vis Taiwan.
In February, the Atlantic Council penned an anonymous 26,000-word report advising Biden to draw a number of red lines around China, beyond which a response — presumably military — is necessary. These included any military action or even a cyber attack against Taiwan. Any backing down from this stance, the council states, would result in national “humiliation” for the United States.
Perhaps most notably, however, the report also envisages what a successful American China policy would look like by 2050:
[T]he United States and its major allies continue to dominate the regional and global balance of power across all the major indices of power;… [and head of state Xi Jinping] has been replaced by a more moderate party leadership; and … the Chinese people themselves have come to question and challenge the Communist Party’s century-long proposition that China’s ancient civilization is forever destined to an authoritarian future.”
In other words, that China has been broken and that some sort of regime change has occurred.
Throughout all this, the United States has been careful to stress that it still does not recognize Taiwan and that their relationship is entirely “unofficial,” despite claiming that its commitment to the island remains “rock solid.” Indeed, only 14 countries formally recognize Taiwan, the largest and most powerful of which is Paraguay.
Along with a military conflict brewing, Washington has also been prosecuting an information and trade war against China on the world stage. Attempts to block the rise of major Chinese companies like Huawei, TikTok and Xiaomi are examples of this. Others in Washington have advised the Pentagon to carry out an under-the-table culture war against Beijing. This would include commissioning “Taiwanese Tom Clancy” novels that would “weaponize” China’s one-child policy against it, bombarding citizens with stories about how their only children will die in a war over Taiwan.
Republicans and Democrats constantly accuse each other of being in President Xi’s pocket, attempting to outdo each other in their jingoistic fervor. Last year, Florida Senator Rick Scott went so far as to announce that every Chinese national in the U.S. was a Communist spy and should be treated with extreme suspicion. As a result, the American public’s view of China has crashed to an all-time low. Only three years ago, the majority of Americans held a positive opinion of China. But today, that number is only 20%. Asian-Americans of all backgrounds have reported a rise in hate crimes against them.
Cash rules everything around me
How much of the United States’ aggressive stance towards China can be attributed to Taiwanese money influencing politics? It is difficult to say. Certainly, the United States has its own policy goals in East Asia outside of Taiwan. But Freeman believes that the answer is not zero. The Taiwan lobby “absolutely has an impact on U.S. foreign policy,” he said, adding:
At one level, it creates an echo-chamber in D.C. that makes it taboo to question U.S. military ties with Taiwan. While I, personally, think there are good strategic reasons for the U.S. to support this democratic ally — and it’s clearly in Taiwan’s interest to keep the U.S. fully entangled in their security — it’s troubling that the D.C. policy community can’t have an honest conversation about what U.S. interests are. But, Taiwan’s lobby in D.C. and their funding of think tanks both work to stifle this conversation and, frankly, they’ve been highly effective.”
Other national lobbies affect U.S. policy. The Cuban lobby helps ensure that the American stance towards its southern neighbor remains as antagonistic as possible. Meanwhile, the Israel lobby helps ensure continuing U.S. support for Israeli actions in the Middle East. Yet more ominously with Taiwan, its representatives are helping push the U.S. closer towards a confrontation with a nuclear power.
While Taiwanese money appears to have convinced many in Washington, it is doubtful that ordinary Americans will be willing to risk a war over an island barely larger than Hawaii, only 80 miles off the coast of mainland China.
Meet their enablers that are pushing – pushing for war with China
So these billionaires are throwing money to American “think tanks” and political operatives. Where does this money go to? Who are the enablers of their desires?
So who are the enablers? Who is on the receiving ends of all this cash, money, gold, and jewels…
Neoconservatives (NeoCon)
President Donald Trump has hijacked the slogan “America First.”
Once upon a time, it stood for nonintervention in foreign wars, now it stands for neocon intervention and forever war.
The Trump presidency has embraced the neocon ethos of murder and “creative destruction,” based on the teachings of an arcane philosopher, Leo Strauss.
The German Jewish emigre believed deception and permanent war are the foundation of the state, a state led by a sociopathic elite.
Strauss believed, as Thomas Hobbes before him, that humans are inherently aggressive. He said this aggressiveness should be channeled into hostility and war against other people and nations.
The neocons as of yet do not have a direct role in a Trump executive, but they are influencing the Trump administration through their foundations and think tanks, most notably the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
Donald Trump is a man with zero guiding or animating principles, but for one: the pursuit of adulation.
The neocons, or some of them at least, gave him the praise he so desperately needs after he bombed Syria, canned the Iran nuke deal, loudly and abusively confronted North Korea and its eccentric hereditary leader, and has slowly but surely moved into the camp that believes China is a threat to America.
The neocons are behind the scenes pulling strings that result in forever war and a body count now surpassing a million and a half souls.
-Neocons: who they are and why they matter
The Washington Post has a reputation as liberal and even left-of-center, although its editorial pages are dominated by neoconservatives who support the idea of American exceptionalism and the extreme operational tempo of America’s military.
In the past week, we have been treated to a series of oped essays that are supportive of expanded American military power and a political, if not military, confrontation with China.
U.S. national media generally have been lazy in their treatment of our military—pandering to the military itself and resorting to retired general officers, such as Generals David Petraeus and Jack Keane, as spokesmen. The media typically defend bloated defense budgets and fail to challenge the dangerous militarization of national security decision making.
The Washington Post is particularly supportive of a more militarized national security policy, including a possible “hot” military confrontation with China.
A Hot Shooting war with China!
A group of their oped writers, particularly Michael Gerson, David Ignatius, and George Will, argue that the United States needs to increase defense spending to “protect the country from a full range of global disasters.”
Ignatius, a long-time apologist for the Central Intelligence Agency, conceded the need for restoring the “right civilian-military alignment,” but offered former secretary of defense Robert Gates as his model because Gates “could be ruthless” with aides to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Gates was, in fact, a captive of the uniformed military.
War in Space!
David Ignatius beats the drums for the just created U.S. Space Force, which inherits 86 space warriors graduating from the Air Force Academy. War in space would be a catastrophe, and even Air Force chief of staff General David Goldfein concedes that in every war game that involves space, we “never come out winning.”
David Ignatius
(During my years at the National War College, China prevailed in every war game that revolved around Taiwan.)
This year’s defense budget appropriates more than $15 billion for space systems, when we should be looking for ways to demilitarize the space frontier—and not promoting another arms race. No country is as dependent economically as the United States on access to space.
War in the South China Sea!
George Will wants a modernized and more lethal Marine Corps at a time when our most dangerous adversaries have developed “high volume, extended-range missile warfare” to deal with threats from the sea. There is a reason why the Marines have not resorted to an amphibious landing since the first months of the Korean War, and that is the high risk and great difficulty of such operations.
George Will
President Harry S. Truman recognized the island-hopping success of the Marines in the Second World War, but he was right for wanting to abolish the Marine Corps at war’s end. Chinese cruise missile technology already has made it certain that U.S. naval ships, including aircraft carriers, will not be able to get close enough to the Chinese Mainland to be effective, and the idea of island-hopping against China is pure fantasy.
Invade the Chinese mainland!
Michael Gerson, the leading speechwriter for President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil” speech in 2002 that prepared the way for the invasion of Iraq, regularly refers to an “increasingly belligerent China.” He believes that Biden would do well to recruit unnamed defense and foreign policy advisers from the Bush administration. Does this mean Biden should bring back Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bob Gates, and Condi Rice who are responsible for policies that have brought the longest period of continuous U.S. war fighting in our history?
Michael Gerson
Gerson even believes that Biden “should be actively persuading…respected military and intelligence figures who served in the Trump administration to publicly support him.” Gerson’s usual suspects are not the answer.
An aggressive military policy against China!
On April 30, the Washington Post carried two additional opeds that endorsed an aggressive policy toward China, pointing to “superior force” as the “surest road to peace.” Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in 2017-2018, argued that “superior Western economic, diplomatic, and military power” defeated the Soviet Union, and that the current challenge from the “Chinese Communists must be seen the same way.”
Nikki Haley
George Will believes that Joe Biden is great because he is willing to “stand up to China, and encourages Biden to “associate himself” with Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), who endorses the conspiratorial theory regarding the responsibility of the research laboratory in Wuhan for the viral outbreak there. Cotton, the Cold War warrior, wrote in the Post on May 3 that the “Chinese Communist Party is our enemy. It aims to displace the United States as the world’s preeminent economic and military power.”
Bio-Warfare is all China’s fault!
Another Washington Post oped writer, Josh Rogin is ignoring efforts of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to link the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic to the Wuhan laboratory. In an oped on May 1, Rogin falsely credited Pompeo with calling for “depoliticizing” the issue of China’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. Pompeo prevented a communique at a recent G-7 meeting because he couldn’t get any of the European representatives to support his polemical accusations. Nevertheless, Rogin cited Pompeo’s specious urgings that the issue of Beijing’s handling of the virus should not become “partisan. It’s too serious a matter.”
Josh Rogin
Pompeo, the leading cheerleader in this campaign, has charged his hand-picked director of the CIA, Gina Haspel, with finding evidence implicating the research lab, according to the New York Times,. However, there is evidence to suggest that Haspel will not accommodate her old boss. Haspel has stood up to the White House on sensitive issues such as the role of Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman in the sadistic killing of a dissident journalist; Russian hacking in the U.S. electoral process; and the origin of the Covid-19 virus.
Haspel’s intelligence analysts could inform Pompeo that it is counterproductive to maintain that the United States and its allies must keep China in “its proper place.” On the other hand, the Defense Intelligence Agency, well known for its willingness to politicize intelligence, recently changed its analytical position in order to accommodate the view that a research lab in Wuhan was the origin of the new pathogen.
Haspel has even protected the job and personal security of the CIA whistleblower whose report led directly to the impeachment process.
No time for diplomacy!
At a time when the Sino-American relationship is central to stabilizing the international arena, we are getting no discussion of the importance of mutual military disengagement in the area of the South China Sea and the need for smart diplomacy. Washington and Beijing are compatible on important strategic issues that deal with the Korean peninsula; the importance of North Korean denuclearization; and the necessity of toning down the risk-taking proclivities of Kim Jong On. In view of the continued uncertainty in North Korea, it is essential that Washington and Beijing have programmatic diplomatic discussions.
A diplomatic dialogue between Washington and Beijing on Korean issues could lead to possibilities for stabilizing the naval rivalry in the South China Sea as well as creating less friction over the issue of Taiwan.
We could send fewer guided-missile cruisers into the South China Sea; China could stop its provocative circumnavigation of Taiwan with fighters and strategic bombers. Even a modest improvement in Sino-American relations would be advantageous, making the strengthened Sino-Russian relationship less threatening to the United States.
It makes no sense for the editorial pages of the Washington Post to assist the efforts of the military-industrial complex to strengthen its case for greater defense spending by exaggerating the so-called threat from China.
Every American president from Richard Nixon to Barack Obama has endorsed a policy of engagement toward China, but Washington’s obsession with trade deficits has created the worst political and economic friction between Washington and Beijing since the first years of the Vietnam War.
And their hate-China narrative…
Why Do Editors Seek ‘Dark Sides’ Of China?
The dark side of China.
There seems to be an inflationary fascination with supposedly ‘dark sides’ of China:
The ‘dark sides’ of China meme did not only start after China had send the goddess Chang’e and Yutu the jade rabbit to the far side of the moon to look for the elixir of life.
One wonders how such ‘dark side’ and ‘weaponizing’ memes happen …
The global media is owned by only 24 people
That’s how!
A new in-depth study has revealed that just 24 companies own the majority of the world’s biggest news outlets. Tech website AddictiveTips conducted the study to find out just consolidated media companies really are in The United States, The United Kingdom and Australia. While the results not be surprising, the study gives a fascinating insight into just how little variety there really is.
Tech blog AddicitveTips have conducted an extremely in-depth and detailed study into the ownership of the world’s media outlets. Their findings show that just 24 companies own the majority of the world’s most powerful news outlets.
The Study
AddictiveTips press release states that the purpose of their study is to;
“uncover the powerful companies and CEOs who control the bulk of today’s news – and present the findings in a tangible way.”
Digital media has become the main driver of news in recent years. Hardcopy newspaper distribution is in free fall, so the battle to control the narrative has moved online.
Rather than turning on the TV at 10pm for the news, you’re more likely to be watching Vox Pops online or seeing mainstream journalists revealing their big “scoop” directly on Twitter. Although the latter has come in for criticism recently, as the “scoop culture” has led to less fact checking so as to get the accolade.
Regardless of who you go to, it is highly likely that many of the outlets you use are connected by one thing; their owner. This study shows who chair the relevant companies. For example News Corp, owners of titles such as The S*n and The Times, are chaired by Australian Robert Thomson. In reality, we all know that the true owner is Rupert Murdoch.
Needless to say, this is a well conducted and researched study.
Methodology
To determine the companies and individuals that own the top news sites in the world, AddictiveTips identified the top owners of the news sites with the most monthly traffic as of September 2019. Data on average visitor traffic for the past one to three months and the relative rank of each news site came from Alexa, an Amazon company, and market intelligence provider SimilarWeb.
They identified the owners of the top 50 news sites globally, in the United States, in the U.K., and in Australia, respectively, using financial filings, corporate press announcements, and other public sources. They then isolated the 20 companies with the most visited sites in each geography, as well as other newsworthy media companies, and identified all of the properties in their online media portfolios, as well as the name of their highest-level owners, using financial filings, corporate press announcements, and other public sources.
For news sites that are owned by investment firms with a majority stake, the CEO or director of the investment firm was listed as the highest-level owner.
For news sites that are owned or directly (or indirectly) controlled
by the government (as is the case of the BBC, who since 2017 has had its board members selected by the UK government), the head of government was listed as the highest-level owner.
A Changing Landscape
Several names are synonymous with media domination around the world: News Corp in the United States, the U.K., and Australia. Globo in Brazil & Yomiuri Shimbun in Japan.
While many of the oldest media conglomerates are as powerful as ever and still growing, the emergence of digital news has substantially altered the media landscape and allowed new companies to emerge as major players in the news industry.
Tech giants like Microsoft and Amazon owner Jeff Bezos, as well as telecommunications conglomerates such as Verizon and AT&T, now rank among the top owners of the world’s media.
Asset Firms
In recent years, asset management firms and private investors have increasingly bought majority stakes in legacy newspapers and have come to dominate the list of the top media owners worldwide. In April 2019, for example, private equity firm Great Hill Partners acquired the Gizmodo Media Group and The Onion, and combined their digital news assets, which include Gizmodo, Jezebel, and The A.V. Club, into a new company named G/O Media Inc.
In August 2019, American investment firm KKR purchased the largest stake in Axel Springer SE, a German media group whose assets include Business Insider and Rolling Stone.
State Controlled or Owned
A significant share of the world’s media is owned by national governments. Through outlets such as PBS and NPR, the BBC, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the governments of the United States, the U.K., and Australia all have significant media holdings. State ownership of media in English-speaking countries is dwarfed, however, by the Government of China’s media holdings.
Who Owns UK News?
As can be seen above, online news media in the U.K. is still dominated by publishers of traditional print media, such as The Times, The Daily Telegraph, and The Guardian.
Tabloid newspapers such as the Daily Mail, The S*n, and the Daily Mirror have a significant online presence in Britain. Several London-based news sites, such as The Economist and the Financial Times, have substantial readership outside of the U.K.
Murdoch’s News Corp, through News Corp UK, The Daily Mail and General Trust plc own many of the largest national news sites in the U.K. This web of companies can make it confusing for some to understand ownership.
Murdoch’s UK empire includes; The Time and the S*n to name a few. The control of so many outlets by so few leads to editors at supposed competing papers actually working in unison to control how a story runs.
Regional Proxies
Through its subsidiary Local World Holdings Ltd. Reach plc owns more than five dozen regional newspapers and their corresponding websites. The mass ownership of regional newspapers by media giants has led to a steep decline in actual local reporting. Instead, outlets copy and paste an article from a sister paper and run it under a different byline. This has created a network of regional proxies all parroting the same story with no local connection.
While the hard copy papers still run a majority of local stories. their corresponding websites run clickbait titles so as to gain advertising revenue; the only thing that keeps the UK online media alive.
The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust Limited, which it claims exists solely to control the finances of the Guardian and ensure its editorial independence.
The US Media
Online news in the United States is still dominated by publishers and broadcasters of traditional print and television news such as CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times.
Online-only news sites that have a major presence in the U.S. include Yahoo!, Huffington Post, and Reddit. Reddit is a majorly underestimated source of news, so much so that the leaked US/UK Trade Talk Papers sat on the site for two months before being noticed.
Some of the top media owners in the U.S. have dominated the news landscape for over a century, and continue to grow in the era of digital news. The Hearst name, for example, first appeared on a newspaper masthead in 1887. Today Hearst Communications owns dozens of newspapers and magazines throughout the country, each with a significant online presence.
Advance Publications, which was founded by Samuel Irving Newhouse Sr. in 1922 and is still family-owned today, has a portfolio that includes Reddit, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, and American City Business Journals.
However, as noted above, there have been new entries to the US news world. Amazon owner Jeff Bezos purchased the influential Wall Street Journal – WSJ, much to the annoyance of President Trump.
Disney are a major player in the US having purchased Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox in March 2019, it now holds titles such as Fox News, abc and has a stake in the above mentioned Hearst Newspaper group.
Australian News Ownership
From 1987 to 2006, Australia had specific legislation limiting foreign ownership of media companies on the continent, as well as restrictions on cross-ownership of media companies meant to preserve the diversity of news media.
Despite these restrictions, today Australia has a relatively high degree of media concentration. National online news media in Australia is essentially controlled by two companies: News Corp, through News Corp Australia, and Nine. Rural news media is largely dominated by Australian Community Media, whose portfolio includes over 170 regional newspapers and their corresponding websites.
Seven West Media also has a substantial news media portfolio that includes traditional newspapers, online-only news sites, magazines, and radio. The Conversation is one of the only major online news sites in Australia that is independently owned.
Australian media appears to have even less diversity than its UK and US counterparts.
Media Ownership Conclusions
As the concentration of online news has increased, so has public distrust in mass media. A recent Gallup poll shows that Americans remain largely mistrustful of the mass media, with just 41% currently having “a great deal” or “fair amount” of trust in newspapers, television and radio to report the news “fully, accurately and fairly.”
In the UK, media trust is poor at best. Just 32% of adults in the UK say they trust the news media at least somewhat. 48% say their news media do a good job of getting the facts right, 46% say they provide coverage independent of corporate influence and 37% say their news coverage is politically neutral. When it comes to covering important topics like immigration, 44% of British adults say that the media is doing a good job. These are not exactly glowing figures for the UK mainstream media. They don’t seem to be able to get close to 50% trust in many cases.
Owners should be asking themselves questions with results like this, but they don’t, and they won’t. The fact is, people still visit their websites and generate profits through advertising, as long as the profits keep coming, they couldn’t care less about trust levels.
That is why at least in the UK, the media and press need to be majorly overhauled. Regional outlets need given back their independence, conglomerates controlling an entire narrative needs to end and the BBC needs a complete overhaul. The number of incidents in the 2019 General Election campaign of “inaccuracies” by the BBC is alarming. They are still the most visited and viewed news platform in the UK. If they are peddling blatant lies, something obviously needs to change.
Independence in the news is at an all time low. Profits for investors take precedent over good quality news. That needs to change. Perhaps you can start by visiting supporting other Independent News sites like this one.
OK. Where are we so far.
Well, we know who wants a war with China.
We also know how they are trying to provoke one, and where they are throwing their money towards.
We also know who their enablers are; they who take that money and run the media printing presses and make policy decisions for a war.
Finally we have seen how they, in turn, manipulate the media that they control. As well as examples of the uniformity of their onslaught.
So what?
So what if America, the United States, wants to launch an “incident” or two? What’s the worst to happen? A down turn in trade? Higher prices at the gas pumps? An increase in war related movies and news? So what?
Well…
It is not going to be like that at all. It won’t be a “pretend war”, it will be a serious, gut wrenching, lethal, lethal war at your front door.
Chinese MIRV
Keep in mind…
All military “war games” against China indicates the USA would lose…
…Very, very badly.
In fact, there isn’t a single war simulation, not one, that has the USA the victor or even a close draw. Each and every simulation for the last 18 years has had the United States defeated in a war with China.
China is a peaceful, prosperous nation that views Taiwan as it’s brothers and sister. No matter what bullshit the main-stream Western media is throwing at you…
Xi Jinping promises peaceful Taiwan reunification
Chinese leader says unity in the best interests of the people of the mainland and of the breakaway island. He’s right.
China’s President Xi Jinping said Saturday “peaceful reunification” with Taiwan “will be and can be realized”, days after Chinese warplanes made record incursions into the air defense zone of the democratically ruled island.
Self-governed Taiwan, which has never formally declared independence, lives under the constant threat of invasion by China, which views the island as its territory and has vowed to one day seize it, by force if necessary.
“Realising national reunification by peaceful means best serves the interests of the nation as a whole including our brethren in Taiwan,” Xi said in a speech marking the 110th anniversary of a revolution that ended millennia of imperial rule and led to the founding of the Republic of China.
“Taiwan independence is the biggest obstacle to the reunification of the motherland and a serious hidden danger,” Xi warned.
A large portrait of Sun Yat-sen, a Western-educated doctor who led the 1911 revolution that toppled the Qing empire, towered over the stage as Xi spoke.
Sun founded the Republic of China, which remains the formal name of Taiwan, where defeated Nationalists fled after Mao Zedong’s Communist forces won the Chinese civil war in 1949 and established the People’s Republic.
“The complete reunification of our country will be and can be realised,” Xi said.
He also warned against foreign interference in Taiwan after a Pentagon official confirmed US special operations forces have been quietly training Taiwanese troops for months.
Did you read that?
Pretty simple.
Pretty clear.
Straightforward and direct.
Now, read how this speech was reported in the American Media. You know, the media that is controlled by only five people, and whom most are neocons…
China, Taiwan tensions spark debate inside Biden admin as Democrats push for more forceful response
Washington (CNN)The Biden administration is grappling with how to respond to China’s ramped-up aggression against Taiwan without accidentally starting a war, as bipartisan lawmakers pressure the President to get tougher on Beijing — and fast.
Huh?
Internally, assessments differ over how imminent the threat to Taiwan really is.
The Pentagon’s Indo-Pacific Command has watched with increasing concern as China has rapidly modernized its military and improved its training with an eye to Taiwan, sources say. But State Department officials are wary of taking a more aggressive approach, and intelligence officials have seen little evidence that China is preparing to invade.
Tensions have risen sharply in the region recently, however, and administration officials were caught off guard when China’s air force dramatically ramped up its incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone earlier this month.
Even before the most recent incursion, the Biden administration had discussed with Taiwanese officials the possibility of expediting the delivery of American-made F-16s to Taiwan, according to Taiwanese and US officials familiar with the talks. The sale of the 66 fighter jets was approved in 2019, but Taiwan hopes to speed up the actual delivery time—which normally can take up to 10 years—particularly in light of the recent Chinese provocations.
The stakes are high for President Joe Biden, who has made human rights and democracy a key part of his foreign policy agenda but who has also been determined to keep the US out of foreign conflicts. For decades, Washington has embraced the concept of “strategic ambiguity” in dealing with Taiwan, in which the US remains deliberately vague about whether it would come to the island’s defense in the event of an attack by China.
But the recent escalation by Beijing marked a major challenge to that posture and has led some Biden administration officials and lawmakers to reconsider that approach, all as the President has been trying to pivot his foreign policy priorities to the Indo-Pacific region.
It’s also led some in Congress to ratchet up pressure on the White House to change its posture.
“The time for strategic ambiguity is long past,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide. “In light of the clear and present danger Beijing poses to Taiwan’s vibrant democracy, the United States must be crystal clear in our intent — with both our words and our actions. In our current context, ambiguity has invited miscalculation and risk, and an effective deterrence posture can only come from clarity.”
The aide added that the Senate is exploring additional steps to provide Taiwan with “the security, economic and diplomatic support essential for our new era of strategic competition.”
In response, a senior administration official said that “U.S. support for Taiwan remains strong, principled, and bipartisan and we will continue to engage with Congress on these important matters.”
Democratic Rep. Tom Malinowski, who served as the State Department’s top human rights official under the Obama administration, also favors a tougher approach, and said it would be an error to think of Xi Jinping as bluffing in his threatening rhetoric. The Chinese leader has vowed to “smash” any attempts by Taiwan to declare independence, and said in a speech this month that “the historical task of the complete reunification of the motherland must be fulfilled, and will definitely be fulfilled.”
Democratic Rep. Tom Malinowski
“It is a consistent mistake of American foreign policy that we project our own pragmatic reasonableness onto others and assume that they don’t mean what they say,” Malinowski said.
Democratic Rep. Elaine Luria, a retired Navy commander, has gone even further, arguing for Congress to give more leeway to the President to launch military operations abroad to defend Taiwan if necessary.
Democratic Rep. Elaine Luria
“The legal limitations on a president’s ability to respond quickly could all but ensure a Chinese fait accompli,” Luria wrote in an October 11 Washington Post op-ed, referring to the limits imposed by the War Powers Act. “My Republican colleagues introduced the Taiwan Invasion Prevention Act in February to grant the president the authority to act against an invasion of Taiwan and prevent a fait accompli. This act is a good starting point to address a legal dilemma.”
‘Nothing suggests’ an invasion
Still, that political pressure has run up against a degree of wariness from the State Department and intelligence community. Intelligence officials have not yet seen anything to suggest that China is readying a military offensive, according to people familiar with the intelligence assessments.
“It was certainly a dramatic escalation,” said one of the people, referring to the 56 Chinese aircraft that flew into Taiwan’s defense zone on October 4, the largest-ever incursion. “But nothing suggests that China is preparing for an invasion of Taiwan.”
Officials in the State Department’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, meanwhile, are leery of taking a much more aggressive posture toward China over the Taiwan issue than the strategically ambiguous status quo.
Former deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg, who was dispatched by Biden to Taiwan in April as part of an unofficial delegation aimed at showing support for the island, called the current situation “very dangerous” and said that ending the strategic ambiguity policy would only embolden Beijing further.
“All bets would be off,” he said, because China would see the shift as a “fundamental breach” of the agreements in place for decades.
“It is important for us to reassure Taiwan, but there are ways to do that and to enhance deterrence without sticking our finger in Beijing’s eye,” Steinberg added.
Biden himself has long been opposed to publicly declaring definitive US support for the island democracy in the event of a Chinese attack.
“The president should not cede to Taiwan, much less to China, the ability automatically to draw us into a war across the Taiwan Strait,” then-Senator Biden wrote in a 2001 op-ed. His 24-page national security strategy devotes one vague line to Taiwan, reading: “We will support Taiwan, a leading democracy and a critical economic and security partner, in line with longstanding American commitments.”
The senior administration official emphasized that the US “has an abiding interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait,” and “will continue to oppose any unilateral changes to the status quo.”
“President Biden voted for the Taiwan Relations Act himself and remains firmly committed to the principles therein,” the official said, “including that the United States will continue to assist Taiwan in maintaining a sufficient self-defense capability; and that the United States would regard any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific and of grave concern to the United States.”
Eyes on 2027
American defense officials said they see 2027 — the 100th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army and the final year of Xi Jinping’s third presidential term — as a key year in which Beijing could try to take Taiwan by force if peaceful unification has not yet been achieved.
Taiwanese Defense Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng predicted earlier this month that China would actually have the “full ability” to invade even sooner, by 2025.
While Xi struck a more conciliatory tone in a speech last week, vowing a “peaceful reunification” with Taiwan, it is unlikely that Taiwan would ever voluntarily give up their relative autonomy; Taiwan’s foreign minister last week said the island was prepared to “fight to the end” in the event of a war with China.
One defense official noted that for China, reuniting with Taiwan “is a matter of national pride.” But Steinberg, the former deputy secretary of state, said he believes that “China would like to avoid the use of force, because it would be counterproductive and risky to its interests.”
Danny Russel, who served as Deputy Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs until 2017, echoed that assessment.
"The Chinese foreign policy and propaganda community certainly wants to sow doubt in American resolve and convince Taiwan that America won't be there for them," he said. "But that is very different from whether Xi Jinping has the stomach for a fight with the U.S., an immensely capable nuclear power, and its allies."
That doesn’t mean things can’t spiral out of control, Steinberg cautioned. The region right now is a tinderbox, as the different sides try to leverage alliances and show off military prowess. The British-led Carrier Strike Group 21, for example, has participated in a multinational show of force in the Indo-Pacific, including through the South China Sea, most of which Beijing claims as its territorial waters.
"My personal view is that none of the sides want an [armed] confrontation, but everyone is afraid that if any side shows weakness or a lack of resolve, then the other side will misinterpret it," Steinberg said. "It's a security spiral, and there is no stability in a situation like this."
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly reported the number of F-16 fighter jets approved for sale to Taiwan in 2019. It was 66.
A very long and detailed article. All are opinions based on lies. I can’t make it any clearer than that.
OK, so we know the twisted propaganda, what now?
Well, there are many, many issues involved. The big one, of course is the absolute collapsing of the United States, and a near panic attempt to delay and forestall the really bitter end of the “grand experiment” in American “democracy”.
But you see, China plays the “long game”. They are playing 78 moves ahead in chess while the Untied States only thinks one move at a time. And that brings up some interesting issues.
Like this one…
China is a rising leader in IC fabrication, but America wants to stop that rise…
[ANALYSIS] Korea under pressure to mediate chip issue
Sharing chip info to US may force Samsung to share it to China
By Kim Yoo-chul
The current semiconductor shortages have illustrated the strategic significance of semiconductor manufacturing. The central point of today’s chip shortages is a classic supply-demand mismatch.
This means that demand for semiconductors is spiking while supply is fairly flat. As the construction of semiconductor factories costs billions of dollars, semiconductor shortages amid the continued pandemic have been directly impacting the “backbone industries” of the United States with many Wall Street investors forecasting supply-chain bottlenecks to continue throughout this year.
The United States, one of the top export markets for Korea, has been aggressively pushing chip-related policies mostly aimed at ensuring the country’s sovereignty in semiconductor production through massive subsidies.
Sanity Check. Look at a chart to see the real picture, before we go further with this article.
The USA is a very minor export destination for Korea's IC chips.
Korea export markets.
The White House was offering to back billion-dollar programs in a bid to strengthen the long-term and a greater self-sufficiency of the U.S. semiconductor industry. Simply and precisely, this issue has become a political one. It’s fair to say that the United States, China and even Europe are on a clear track to politicize tech supply chains.
The U.S. Department of Commerce asked America's "Big 3" automakers and key industry players operating there ― including Intel, TSMC, Apple, Samsung Electronics and GlobalFoundries ― to submit their key semiconductor management-related data such as inventory levels, production targets and revenue estimates according to clients and technology development roadmaps by Nov. 8 this year.
.
The U.S. government stressed that the submission of the information should be voluntary.
But Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo warned industry executives recently that her team may invoke the Defense Production Act (DPA) or other available tools to force such required data into their hands.
.
To FORCE them…
"What I told them is, 'I don't want to have to do anything compulsory but if they don't comply, then they'll leave me no choice',"
she said.
No option but to consider ‘China factor’
From Korea’s standpoint, given the country’s strengths in the chip sector, any decision to share such classified information with the United States will cause adverse results as China is equally important…
No.
Look at the chart up above again. China is by far the largest and most significant buyer of these chips. With the United States being a very tiny and insignificant customer. So, people (!) they are NOT "equally important".
…and comparable to the United States in terms of the significance of trade.
Again. No. Unless you have the intelligence of a snail.
USA is 9%
China is 51%
They are NOT comparable. But the brain dead readership in the West really never bothers to check the raw data. They rely on the "journalists" to do so. Blind faith; it will "kick you in the balls" unless you are careful.
Samsung and SK have invested more than $15 billion in semiconductor plants in China.
"Things are becoming very complicated.
However, the primary focus is that Samsung Electronics is advised not to share its classified chip data with the U.S. government.
If it does that, then Samsung will be situated to submit confidential data to Beijing regarding its semiconductor business. That's a scenario I don't want to think about.
Again, this is more about a matter of national security and intellectual property,"
…a high-ranking government official told The Korea Times, Sunday.
"Washington's request for Samsung to share classified information is totally unprecedented,"
…said Ahn Ki-hyun, a senior executive at the Korea Semiconductor Industry Association (KSIA). Analysts and officials are not ruling out the possibility of handing over acquired data to Intel, which announced its entry into foundry-chip making with Washington’s backing.
Samsung Electronics, the world’s top memory chip manufacturer, has been operating a massive foundry chip-making plant for more than a decade in the U.S. state of Texas. The tech giant is set to announce the location of its new $17 billion plant, also likely to be in Texas, when Samsung chief Lee Jae-yong signs off on the deal, possibly next month.
China is Samsung Electronics’ other key market.
.
It operates several chip plants in the neighboring country with assistance from Beijing ― similar to the arrangement with the United States. China has been massively boosting its investment in semiconductor capabilities.
Samsung, in this regard, has become sandwiched on multiple fronts between the United States and China.
They are being forced to choose. Select the Untied States, or their nearby nuclear armed neighbor, China, where 80% of their factories lie. -MM
This quote…
"Samsung can't handle this issue alone as it is too big for a private company to handle.
The South Korean government needs to ask the White House and U.S. commerce department to minimize the scope of information that Samsung must share.
Or Samsung Electronics and the government will need to lobby U.S. politicians on the points that it is already the top-tier foreign direct investor in the United States with large scale local employment and that it will remain as the most-trusted business partner there.
The same appealing points could be applied when Samsung deals with China,"
…a senior industry executive said by telephone.
South Korea’s top trade negotiator Yeo Han-koo voiced the country’s uneasiness regarding Washington’s request to share chip data and Finance Minister Hong Nam-ki said he also relayed Korean chipmakers’ concerns about Washington’s request to U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen.
The global semiconductor industry is following its typical cycle with overcapacity forecasted for 2023. This trend will threaten the bottom lines of major chipmakers, raising the possibility that some cash-intensive investment plans will have to be scaled back.
China is the leader in military artificial intelligence (AI) technology
At least that is what the Leadership of the United States AI Technology branch thinks. He caused quite a roar a few weeks ago when he resigned and all the neocon publication went bat-shit crazy over it. Then the furor died down.
US Air Force software boss resigns: ‘Battle over AI lost to China’
Nicolas Chaillan, 37, told the Financial Times after resigning: 'We have no competing fighting chance against China in 15 to 20 years.' 'Right now, it's already a done deal – it is already over in my opinion,' he added. 'Whether it takes a war or not is kind of anecdotal.'
That says the former software chief of the US Air Force to the Financial Times. According to Nicolas Chaillan, there is “good reason to be angry”.
Chaillan has spent the past few years working within the armed forces on ways to improve cybersecurity. The former Air Force chief software officer told the newspaper he resigned last week in protest at the slow pace at which the military is undergoing technological transformation. He also says that he cannot see the US being surpassed by China.
Chaillan, 37, said the US will no longer be able to compete with China in 15 to 20 years. “It’s already a done race. It’s already over, in my eyes,” he told the Financial Times. Chaillan also warned that cybersecurity in some government departments is still at “kindergarten” level.
The former top official said he wants to testify before the US parliament about the Chinese cyber threat to his country within weeks. Although that spends much more money on defense than China, according to Chaillan, this is not done in an effective way. He also complained that bureaucracy is hampering necessary reforms.
According to the former software chief, technologies such as artificial intelligence are much more important for the future of the US than, for example, new jet fighters such as the F-35. He called the discussion about ethics in the development of artificial intelligence a restraining factor in the US. Companies such as Google would also be reluctant to cooperate with the military in the field of AI.
The situation in China looks very different, according to Chaillan. There, according to the expert, companies are obliged to cooperate with the authorities and “huge investments are made” without taking ethics into account.
All of the AI for them is mature and is used in industry inside of China. China has been producing military robots straight out of the movie “Terminator”, and they swim, fly, crawl, and walk. I’ll be you never heard about all that have you?
Well here’s some movies to get you a bit interested…
Video Here.
I wonder how the Western armies would feel if they confronted military robots that looked like funny fat bunny rabbits, cute attractive women, little big eyed children? I wonder how they would react to Tonka-truck sized walking grenades, robot dog bomb squads, and mini-nuke drones?
Video Here
Robotic farming is a mature technology. Can you even imagine what the military has MASS PRODUCED? I know that there are robot fish that are swimming bombs, as well as all sorts of things that would rest inside your worst nightmare.
Video Here.
Schools of robotic fish. Some with bombs, some with sensors. All under the control of the Chinese military and swimming all over the South China Sea.
Video Here.
And here’s a shark robot. I wonder if it has friggin’ lasers in it’s eyes?
Video Here.
China has advanced anti-satellite technology
Chinese scientists build anti-satellite weapon that can cause explosion inside exhaust
Researchers who built the device say it can lock itself into the thruster nozzles used by most satellites and stay there for long periods undetected
Scientists say the resulting blast would damage the target’s equipment and may be mistaken for an engine malfunction
China is the leader in the rapid manufacture of nuclear weapons systems
Yah. China is the leader in manufacturing. Not only have they absorbed all the technologies needed and necessary for manufacturing, but they have developed an adjacent infrastructure to support those industries.
And it’s not just rubber ducks, hospitals, electric cars, and clothing. It also includes military systems and hardware. And we can see it. Though it is only briefly reported in the American media, China has created a formidable Naval Fleet that operates in the waters adjacent to China; the South China Sea. Unlike the United States, which spreads military project outward everywhere, China’s is concentrated next to China.
And it’s not just that. Consider the mass production of the nuclear armed MIRV ICBM the DF-41. Also known as a “scatter-gun” nuke delivery system.
The DF-41 missile has an operational range of more than 14,000 kilometers and can carry about 10 independently targetable nuclear warheads, capable of hitting anywhere on Earth, and this would make DF-41 the world's longest range missile, surpassing the range of the US LGM-30 Minuteman which has a reported range of 13,000 kilometers.
Yang Chengjun, a Chinese expert on missile technology and nuclear strategy and chief scientist of quantum defense, told the Global Times that the DF-41 is Chinese fourth-generation strategic nuclear weapon and has the longest operational range among all Chinese ICBMs. "This ICBM's research and development was very successful, and its technology is very mature. During testing, there was no failure record," Yang noted.
Wu Jian, editor of Defense Weekly under the Shanghai-based Xinmin Evening News, told the Global Times that the multiple transporter erector launchers of the DF-41 missile shown in the October 2019 parade proved that the People's Liberation Army had already built a massive and advanced system to support the use of this missile. "This proves that China has sufficient and reliable strategic nuclear power, and decision-makers have the confidence to show and use them to respond to any kind of nuclear threat from any country." Wu noted "No matter how advanced the missile is, it always needs a mature and comprehensive system to make sure it can accurately strike a target, which at least includes intelligence gathering, satellite surveillance, logistics, and construction of launching positions".
Public data shows that DF-41 is a rival of the 6th-generation missiles of some developed countries, such as the American LGM-30 Minuteman and the Russian RT-2PM2. The Chinese missile even has an edge with regard to some technologies. The DF-41 has a range of 12,000 kilometers and a deviation of some one hundred meters. It can carry six to 10 multiple maneuverable warheads, which makes it difficult to be intercepted. The missile is 16.5 meters in length with a diameter of 2.78 meters. It can be launched from road- and rail-mobile launcher platforms, as well as silo-based launchers.
China’s state-owned Global Times, on 23 January 2017, carried a report, which said the Dongfeng-41 (DF-41) missile would bring China “more respect.” The missiles that are capable of carrying 10-12 nuclear warheads were deployed near the China-Russia border, according the report, which did not go into further detail. there has been no authoritative information on whether China has a Dongfeng-41 strategic missile brigade, how many such brigades it has and where they are deployed. Two days earlier, Pingguo Ribao, a Hong Kong-based publication reported about the deployment. News of a potential deployment leaked much earlier.
Song Zhongping, a Beijing-based military affairs commentator, noted that the new missiles would also have stronger penetration abilities and faster response times. "Only with these advantages can they have the chance to quickly penetrate through the missile defense system of the US."
Chinese military observers have widely connected China's efforts in improving its missiles' functions with the missile defense plans of the United States. At present, the US is developing a multi-level missile defense network including the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System, Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense, and Sea-based SM-3 Missile Defense System.
Song said China's development of the new missiles is aimed at maintaining military balance to protect national security, not to seek hegemony, while the US is trying to break it by being ambitious in improving military technologies in both defense and attack. China has a "no first use" policy for nuclear weapons. "The US has been building its missile defense network like a shield, which other countries' missiles cannot penetrate. This for sure stimulated other countries to sharpen their 'spears.' Otherwise, if the US has both the strongest shield and spear, they could impose an aggressive strategy on us, and we would be driven into passivity," said Song.
China can detect all American stealth aircraft
China has reportedly developed anover-the-horizonmaritime early warning radar systemthat can detect stealth aircraft far beyond visual range, an advanced capability that could threaten US fifth-generation fighters operating in the area.
-China Says NewRadarCanSpotUSStealthFighters
The solution?
Don’t put military fighters near Chinese airspace. Duh!
The Chinese teach military discipline and warfare skills in elementary school through out elementary, middle and high school. The Pioneers is a paramilitary branch of the children that concentrates on military art to serve the nation. In middle school, all students must go through “boot camp”. And then in High School, students are carefully vetted to see what role or part of society that they can serve best.
While China has an enormous and huge military force, it is also integrated with other fighting organizations. Such as the police, the coast guard, the various civilian detachments and so on and so forth.
Were China to be attacked, it won’t be just a small percentage of the people trying to defend the cities. It would be the vast bulk of society. From 5 year old kids in kindergarten, to 80 year old great grandfathers. You do not want to shake the Chinese hornet’s nest.
China uses nuclear weapons as part of it’s defensive posture. No escalation would occur.
AChineseWayof War. The primary goal of a commander educated in the style of the ancient Chinesemilitary classics was a rapid, easy victory, one obtained via a variety of tactics which have a long lineage within Chinese military historiography.
-A ChineseWayof War
Chinese military doctrine is to control the course of any war from the onset. They do not believe in evolving into “stages of conflict”. They believe that a war is a war. And you treat it as such. They do not make a functional distinction between military forces landing on one of their islands, or a full assault on a city. If you attack them, they will attack back.
From 1977 to 1988 China developed a neutron bomb, more formally known as an enhanced radiation weapon. Neutron bombs are specialized tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) withreduced blast effects and enhanced radiation. Similar to the BMD and ASAT puzzles, this weapon appearsincompatible with China’s stated nuclear doctrine.
-National Interest.
Unlike the United States, China has developed systems geared to kill the enemy while leaving their buildings, automobiles, bridges and factories intact. It is called a “neutron bomb”. The West does not employ these weapons because of the political fallout.
This is a special nuclear weapon that releases radiation instead of blowing up things massively. The amount of radiation is quick, and very, very lethal and dissipates rather quickly; on the order of months.
These are also huge weapons that can totally kill everyone in a single city while leaving eh skyscrapers intact. The intended purpose is against military bases, and hardened underground sites, but they can (and in a war, would) be employed to empty out complete cities.
For instance, if used against Chicago or Atlanta, the entire city would be spared from destruction. It’s just that all the people would die a very painful death by radiation as they are on their knees vomiting out their hemorrhaging internal organs.
The American policy, since President Trump, has been to use micro-nukes to hit “high value” targets, and then use the threat of complete national nuclear annihilation if the attacked nation responds.
The Chinese policy is to use nuclear weapons from the moment they are attacked. They do not believe in escalation.
Thus any nation that attacks China, whether it is a proxy for the United States, or the actual United States; both types of nations will be hit with swarm nuke warheads. These are very deadly “shotgun” nuclear missiles that fire a barrage of nuclear bombs in clusters.
To say that they are similar to American MIRV ICBM’s is silly. And just shows how ignorant one is.
If, say, America launches a nuclear ICBM at China, the missile would contain three nuclear warheads. One for Beijing, one for Shanghai, and one for Hong Kong.
But if China launches a nuclear ICBM at the United States, it would contain ten nuclear warheads that would all be directed at a singular city. So New York and all the surrounding region would be pulverized into radioactive glass by ten, very, very large, and very, very dirty, nuclear bombs.
But the Chinese (and the Russians), while they do have the ability to lay precision target ordnance, do not employ it.
They use a wholly different strategy. They believe in carpet swath attacks. Instead of placing a singular lone high value missile on a singular lone high value target, like the United States, they instead believe in leveling the entire area into obliteration.
While the United States might plan on striking say 20 high value target in a particular city, China would calibrate a nuclear warhead and destroy the entire city indiscriminately. That way all of the targets are removed, and sure there’s a lot of collateral damage, but “tough cookies”. You all shouldn’t have fucked with them in the first place. Ya God damn morons.
This policy is completely across the board. Not just strategic, but tactical and theater as well. China will eviscerate a complete area. While the United States and it’s vassals are busy trying to attack a hamlet, a building or a structure. China just rubble’s everything.
China does not play.
Financial Times says US intelligence officials reportedly caught by surprise by Beijing’s progress on weapons; Pentagon: ‘We hold China as our number one pacing challenge’
This is to tell the Western crusaders not to try their luck by starting another war.
The average number of times that China is taking the USA Pentagon by surprise is 6 times per year. (every two months) Average, of course.
This time, China has tested a new supersonic rocket, encircling the world.
China tests earth-circling, nuclear-capable hypersonic missile:
https://lnkd.in/dTDKYu3z
China Tested A Fractional Orbital Bombardment System That Uses A Hypersonic Glide Vehicle: Report
Such a capability could potentially allow China to execute a nuclear strike on any target on earth with near-impunity and very little warning.
A report from Financial Times’ Demetri Sevastopulo and Kathrin Hille states that China has tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic glide vehicle that goes into space and traverses the globe in an orbital-like fashion before making its run through the atmosphere toward its target. There would be huge implications if such a system were to be operationalized, and according to this story, which says it talked to five officials confirming the test, the U.S. government was caught totally off-guard by it.
The trial flight is said to have occurred around August, with the boost-glide vehicle being lifted into space by a Long March 2C rocket. The launch of the rocket, the 77th of its kind, was undisclosed by Beijing, while the 76th and 78th were—the latter of which occurred in late August. The Financial Times says that the tested hypersonic glide vehicle missed its target by a couple of dozen miles, but that is hardly reassuring considering the capabilities that are apparently in development here.
The foundation of this Cold War-era concept is commonly referred to as a Fractional Orbital Bombardment System, or FOBS, but instead of carrying a traditional nuclear-armed reentry vehicle, this Chinese system would carry a hypersonic glide vehicle that would possess immense kinetic energy upon reentry. As such, it could make a very long maneuvering flight through the atmosphere at very high speeds to its target.
The FOBS concept has long been a concern because of its potential to bypass not just missile defenses, but even many early warning capabilities. Compared to a traditional intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a FOBS can execute the same strikes but from highly unpredictable vectors. Range limitations also become a non-factor and the timing of an inbound strike is also far less predictable. But at least with a traditional FOBS ballistic missile system, some sort of projections could be made if the mid-course “orbital” vehicle can be tracked, although that could still be a real challenge.
That is not the case at all with a hybrid design like the one being claimed to have been tested here, which would be totally unpredictable.
The maneuvering hypersonic glide vehicle, descending from high-altitude at extreme speed, could travel thousands of miles to its target, which can be totally offset from a normal ballistic track. Complicating things more, these systems can attack from the south pole, not just the north where most of America’s ballistic missile early warning, tracking, and defensive apparatus is focused. Intercepting such a system would also be very challenging, especially considering U.S. mid-course intercept capabilities are focused on traditional ballistic missile flight profiles, which fly more of a parabolic trajectory and have generally known ranges of each stage of flight.
With a glide vehicle end-game delivery system paired with a FOBS, its vehicles can enter the atmosphere beyond the range of an interceptor’s exo-atmospheric mid-course kill envelope, with the glide vehicle weaving its way through the atmosphere to its final target. Traditional surface-based radar systems’ line of sight is also significantly reduced as the hypersonic glide vehicle travels in the atmosphere. Paired with the extreme speeds involved, this can make these systems nearly useless at providing any details regarding the impending attack.
Hypersonic glide vehicles themselves are also very tough to kill with no real defense against them available at this time. Elaborate defensive concepts are in the works, but their effectiveness will depend on just how fast these vehicles are traveling, their maneuverability, density in numbers, what third-party sensors are available to help in generating an engagement solution, and more. A hypersonic glide vehicle with the kinetic energy in its favor from an orbital-like delivery would likely be the very hardest to kill.
Last month, Frank Kendall, US air force secretary, hinted that Beijing was developing a new weapon. He said China had made huge advances, including the “potential for global strikes . . . from space”.
He declined to provide details, but suggested that China was developing something akin to the “Fractional Orbital Bombardment System” that the USSR deployed for part of the Cold War, before abandoning it.“ If you use that kind of an approach, you don’t have to use a traditional ICBM trajectory. It’s a way to avoid defenses and missile warning systems,” said Kendall.
In August, General Glen VanHerck, head of North American Aerospace Defense Command, told a conference that China had “recently demonstrated very advanced hypersonic glide vehicle capabilities”. He warned that the Chinese capability would “provide significant challenges to my Norad capability to provide threat warning and attack assessment”.
There is no shortage of concerns about China’s nuclear buildup within the DoD, and like Moscow, it’s only logical that Beijing would invest in delivery systems that circumvent U.S. early warning and defensive capabilities. The idea that at least some of the hundreds of supposed silos out in the Chinese desert being built to house new ballistic missiles could one day be armed with a weapon like this is very concerning. It also could be yet another major driver behind the Pentagon’s push to deploy a whole new space-based early warning and tracking system for hypersonic and ballistic missiles, including one capable of “cold layer” tracking of missiles in their midcourse stage of flight.
But really, I've been banging on about orbital bombardment for several years now. It's obvious: The US put a missile defense system in Alaska to defend against missiles coming over the North Pole. What did you think Beijing, Moscow and Pyongyang will do? Just give up?
— Dr. Jeffrey Lewis (@ArmsControlWonk) October 16, 2021
That layer would be absolutely essential in trying to defend against a FOBS, that is if a defense at all is actually feasible or even strategically sound. We are not talking about a rogue state here with a few advanced ballistic missiles. China would be able to deploy dozens or even hundreds of these at once. At a certain point, kinetic defenses against such a capability become a losing proposition and a very costly one at that.
Still, this was an early test aboard a full-on rocket used for traditional space access missions. It will take China some time to perfect such a system and package it in a quickly deployable militarized configuration. Major thermal and ablative issues also must be overcome, among others, but it’s not like China hasn’t been working diligently in the hypersonic boost-glide vehicle realm for many years.
Regardless, if this report ends up being fully accurate, one thing is likely: New calls for hugely expensive missile defense capabilities will be ringing loud and often on Capitol Hill, as well as demands to do whatever possible to bring China to the bargaining table in hopes of obtaining some type of strategic arms limitation treaty.
By the late the fifth century BC, after decades of war with its chief rival Sparta, the ancient Greek city-state of Athens was desperate for peace.
They wanted a decisive victory to end the war once and for all. So the citizens gathered together in their public assembly– essentially a democratic mob of 6,000 people– and voted to build a new, costly fleet of ships.
The strategy worked. And their new armada vanquished the Spartan navy in the Battle of the Arginusae Islands in 406 BC.
Sparta was on the ropes, and the Assembly cheered when news of their fleet’s victory reached Athens.
But then the Assembly found out that 25 of the 150 ships had been sunk by the Spartans, and that the Athenian crews of those 25 sunken ships had drowned in a storm.
The Assembly suddenly became furious, crying that the souls of those drowned sailors would wander purgatory for all of eternity because they didn’t have a proper burial.
So then the Athenian mob voted to execute eight of their top military commanders; the very same generals and admirals who had just won the battle and been called heroes, were now being put to death.
Socrates was one of the lone voices of dissent; yet the death sentences were still carried out despite his protest.
Then, only a few days later, the Athenian Assembly had a change of heart. The mob realized that they shouldn’t have executed their military commanders, so they then voted to execute the people within the Assembly who had proposed the executions to begin with.
During this insane dumpster fire of ancient democracy, Spartan leaders approached Athens with a peace deal, offering to end the war once and for all.
This was the entire reason that Athens had built a new fleet. They just wanted peace.
But they were so distracted by infighting and arguing about who to execute next, and who to blame, that the Assembly rejected Sparta’s peace offering.
Yet Athens’ military was now led by inexperienced admirals and generals, since they had just executed their best commanders. And Sparta quickly seized the advantage.
Within a few months the Spartan navy was ravaging Athenian territory, and soon laying siege to Athens itself. The war finally ended in 404 BC with Athens losing all sovereignty and falling under complete control of the Spartan Empire.
As the old saying goes, history doesn’t necessarily repeat. But it certainly rhymes. And I was thinking about this particular episode recently when it was reported earlier this week that China has just successfully tested its first nuclear-capable hypersonic missile.
In case you don’t geek out on military strategy like I do, suffice it to say that this is a huge deal, not just for the United States, but for the entire world.
For the past several decades, the United States has boasted the strongest, most technologically advanced military in the world.
And it would be foolish to think that this military strength hasn’t substantially contributed to America’s geopolitical and economic power.
The United States Marine Corps is essentially the biggest derivatives contract in the world. It’s the US government’s ultimate hedge, enabling it wage trade wars, sanction foreign banks, and bully anyone it wants into following US regulations.
The US military is even part of the reason why the dollar is still the world’s reserve currency, despite the US government being the largest debtor that has ever existed in the history of the world.
The US government, and the US economy, both derive substantial benefit from America’s military power.
And this is why China’s rapid military development is such a big deal.
China could destroy the United States in cyberwarfare. That’s pretty much a foregone conclusion. I mean… there are still system within the US Defense Department that use 5 ¼ inch floppy disks.
But even in conventional warfare, China is gaining rapidly. The Chinese Navy already the world’s largest fleet. And this is important because one of the biggest roles of a modern navy is to project military firepower over great distances.
China is investing heavily in this capability, feverishly building new ships and developing new technology.
It has massive stockpiles of cruise missiles, most of which have larger payloads and longer range than comparable US weaponry.
This week’s hypersonic missile launch is merely the latest proof; it’s technology that the US cannot counteract either, given that hypersonic missiles are more likely to be able to evade missile defense systems.
The Chinese wasted no time gloating their achievement, calling the launch “a new blow to the US’s mentality of strategic superiority. . .”
You’d think this would be a massive wake-up call to the US federal government.
The balance of power is shifting right in front of their very eyes.
Yet take a look at their priorities– spending trillions of dollars on ‘equity’ and ‘social justice’, which they claim will supposedly “cost nothing”.
They’re busy directing federal resources to target parents who are angry over the way their children are being educated.
They’re pushing people out of government service, whether through mandates, or through ideological purges to weed out those with conservative beliefs.
As the Center for Military Readiness reports, US Special Operations Command “intends to elevate diversity, inclusion, and equity above mission effectiveness and overall readiness.”
In fact a leaked Special Operations Command planning document states at least 12 times over twenty pages that “diversity and inclusion are operational imperatives” even though they provide no support to back up this assertion.
If that doesn’t freak you out, check out how certain medical schools are turning into orwellian nightmares where professors and other teachers are literally afraid to say “pregnant woman”.
The Defense Department is exploring racial quotas in its promotion criteria. They’re planning to reduce physical fitness standards.
And military recruiting advertisements (along with those of the Central Intelligence Agency) are now focused on LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ diversity goals.
This behavior is so counterproductive that even the ancient Athenian assembly would stand in awe at its destructive stupidity.
American military recruitment advertisements compared to Russia and China
The stark contrast between the U.S. military’s woke recruitment ads and Russia and China’s impressive and menacing recruitment videos have people on social media taking notice. Russia’s video from 2017 shows a man compelled by a sense of national pride to serve in the military, where he is then seen subjected to rigorous and intensive training. In China, the advertisements focus on family, community, country and the need to defend and participate in it for the maintenance of social order, while in America the military recruits in support of gay and LGBT rights and Climate Change.
China has urged its citizens to keep physical goods and not paper money.
There will be a huge round of inflation as the US, Japan, UK, Sweden, etc, are printing more and more money.
So the Chinese are planning not to accept USD but only their RMB for payments,
RECEIVED THIS CHINESE ARTICLE FROM CONTACTS IN GUANGZHOU...
This is an article circulating within China. It advises people to focus on buying Chinese items, and durable goods, and refrain from buying or trading in the West with anything other than other durable goods, or the RMB.
朋友，请你看清时势：
Friends, please observe the current situation clearly:
.
中国大陆开始施行自我保护措施了！
MAINLAND CHINA HAS BEGUN TO IMPLEMENT SELF-PROTECTION MEASURES!
.
一是保护国民安全，大幅度减少入境人员。
#1. It is to protect the safety of the people and drastically reduce the number of people entering China.
.
二是保护国民资产，减缓实物出口。
#2. Secondly is to protect national assets and slow down physical exports.
When the U.S. ( COVID-19 ) epidemic broke out and there was no effective preventive measures and control for a long time… the country’s populations were isolated, production stagnated, and stocks of supplies quickly dwindled, and the Federal Reserve desperately cut interest rates ( to stimulate the economy ) including PRINTING BANK NOTES for the so-called “economic stimulus”.
.
When a nation’s durables and their supporting industries industry becomes scarce, the banknotes of that nation will become cheap and useless, and as disposable as toilet paper. They are similar to plastic coins.
The coronavirus, and more precisely the handling of it, has been a disaster in the Western nations. As such. their solution to the economic impact of the botched handling of the pandemic caused an acceleration in the worthlessness of the currency.-MM
The the US dollar as the international currency is very dangerous. Using it is equivalent to plundering the materials, the labor, and the services of goods-producing nations.
Use of the USD is no longer sustainable or advised. -MM
Due to this COVID-19 epidemic… food, clothing, housing, transportation, shopping, and travel could not be realized in the foreign exchange by the producing . country, and the value of the currency holders has continuously depreciated.
Due to coronavirus, all normal international actions has been impacted. Those holding currency in the nations that have not been able to successfully manage the pandemic, has seen their currency depreciate. -MM
The Euro, the US dollar, the British pound, and the Swiss franc are all such currencies and will gradually become useless paper. Therefore, China understands that in any country where the epidemic is not under control, the Chinese will no longer exchange physical objects for foreign currency like these worthless plastic coins.
In trading with the West, it is important to note that all the currency that they use will soon become absolutely worthless. You can measure the future of the value of the currency by the economic turmoil caused by the coronavirus. -MM
高筑墙，广积粮，p自我内部循环，保证财富不流失，等待《以物易物》或人民币国际化。
Build high walls ( TO ISOLATE ), accumulate grains, internal trade and consumption and ensure that ‘wealth’ is not lost. Instead wait for the financial exchange method of “BARTERING FOR GOODS” or alternatively, the “INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE CHINESE RMB”.
Now, the Chinese people are put on warning. They must start to make arrangements to barter, or use the RMB in transactions. It is highly possible that wealth will start to be lost was inflation eats away at the value of the USD. -MM
我们有此行动，估计越南、印度、马来西亚、印尼… 等生产国也会采取类似关门措施。
We have taken this action, and it is estimated that Vietnam, India, Malaysia, Indonesia… and other producing countries will also adopt similar “CLOSE DOOR” MEASURES.
China is making this announcement along with Russia. It is expected that the rest of SE Asia will follow. -MM
大家都明白，谁拿实物换冥币，谁就是傻瓜。
Everyone understands that whoever exchanges real physical things for THIS PLASTIC COIN is a fool.
Exchanging physical, substantive items in exchange for paper, plastic, or other non-durable items; items that are subject to the whims of politics, and their irrational actions, is a fool. -MM
美国这个月内，增发1.9万亿亿美元，欧盟，日元也是大量印钞票。
Just within this month, the United States has issued an additional 1.9 trillion US dollars, and the European Union and the Japanese also printed a large amount of money.
The whole world is relying on PRINTING MONEY to survive the crisis. It is very important to watch how the RMB renminbi will fare. If you follow the money printing trend, inflation will be the end result; and if you don’t follow the trend, it means that the renminbi will be offsetting currency inflation ( when you trade and accept their Currency ) and thereby you sustain LOSSES.
If you trade with foreign nations and accept the USD in exchange for the products you make, you are taking a huge risk. China urges all nations to accept other means of payment; stable means, where possible. -MM
Therefore, we are maintaining in an extremely stiff (difficult) situation and we will not cut our interest rates.
.
In the near future all trade will be settled bilaterally in Chinese currency the RMB. If you want to buy our goods, we will no longer accept USD. Instead you will need to pay us in RMB, or barter for them with other durable items.
China is laying down the line. No. Not only will China not buy up any American or Western debt, but that it will now start to insist in hard durable payment schemes for all items made in China. If you want iPhones, for example, then you should use RMB, or barter with an equivalent amount of beef, wine, or wheat. -MM
我们终于醒过来了，不再盲目大量出口，也看清许多国家”大量印钞票”只是在搜刮世界物质财富。
We have finally waken up…. we are no longer blindly exporting large quantities of products. We have also notices that many countries that are “printing a large amount of money” are simply just plundering the world’s material wealth in exchange for vapor.
The Big Giant has finally woken up. -MM
只要认清方向，永远不晚，我们不能再做赔本生意了，中国人照顾好自己的人民才最重要。
As long as we understand the direction… it is never too late. We refuse to do business at a loss. The most important thing is for the Chinese GOVERNMENT to take good care and look after the welfare of its people.
The United States spent only ten cents to print a hundred-dollar bill (without any precious metal collateral) and asked to buy one hundred dollars value of your goods. Isn’t this cheating / bullshit? This is a blatant fraud. It is a shameless plunder.
That's putting it mildly. When you couple the realization that all this fake money is then being used to attack, and demonize China; the source from whence the value is derived. -MM
The United States Painted a BEAUTIFUL Scenery and ASKS CHINA TO HELP THEM TIDE OVER THE CRISIS with a promise to stop the trade war, PRETENDING TO COMPROMISE, and using THEIR USELESS DOLLARS to buy Chinese-produced materials.
.
We will not be fooled AGAIN.
.
让美国人去自己玩吧，我们不奉陪了。【 請转发】
Let the Americans and play by themselves, we will no longer be participating.
A final warning
As if that isn’t enough to convince you, keep in mind that the US military is pretty much a “paper tiger“. Latest eg. :A phone call threat plus a shooter is enough to shut down an entire United States military complex.
You do not want to fuck with Asia. You have no fucking idea what your world will end up looking like. VIDEO.
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.
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.
Service grants citizenship.
The book
The book is well worth the read. I have it available in glorious and easy to read HTML here…
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.
Starship Troopers
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.
Starship Troopers
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.
Starship Troopers
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.
Starship Troopers
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.
Starship Troopers
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.
Starship Troopers
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.”
Starship Troopers
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.
Starship Troopers
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.
Starship Troopers
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”.
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.
Starship Troopers
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.
Modern China.
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.
Starship Troopers
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.
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.
Boys and Girls no one gets a pass.
The third video is the reservists. China has an active military and the reserves that meet every few weeks. VIDEO.
Reservists practice and drill over and over and over and over.
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”.
Of course there are all sorts of interesting things in these videos.
Group 3B
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.
Starship Troopers
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.
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.
Starship Troopers
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.
Honor guards attend a flag-raising ceremony at Tiananmen Square in 2017.
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.
Starship Troopers
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.
The Chinese are hyper-patriotic.
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.
The government is not our friend. Nor does it work for “we the people.”
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.
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.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
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.
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
The government knows exactly which buttons to push in order to manipulate the populace and gain the public’s cooperation and compliance.
If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
If there is an absolute maxim by which the federal government seems to operate, it is that the American taxpayer always gets ripped off.
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.
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.
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.
Starship Troopers
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.
The BRFLS Second Grade Chinese Young Pioneers Initiation Ceremony
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!
China is the future.
Just like in the movie “Starship Troopers”…
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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:
Canadian CIA.
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.
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.
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).
Rescue air flight.
[1] Vancouver is close to the United States, so the board briskly went along the line “as far away as possible from the main territory of the United States and from Alaska” vertically upward, aiming directly at the North Pole.
[2] Over the Arctic, he made the shortest possible route to the Russian air defense zone and went further south through Siberia and Mongolia.
[3] The standard version of the route (see the second picture), through the Pacific Ocean, where the American control points and, in general, there are enough opportunities to do something bad, was not used, although it was announced in advance that this is how Air China would fly back.
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.”
Do you think that the Chinese were being overly cautious, or rather that the over-the-pole flight path was the most economical one to take?
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
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 20th 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 5th 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.
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.
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?
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.
Do you think that China would invade Australia and attack the American military there? Or what do you think China would do to deal with this threat?
Oh, and worth a view…
“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. AV+transcript. China Rising Radio Sinoland 210907
"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.
Do you think that he is correct, that the USD will regain it’s strength and global standing?
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.
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.
The U.S. would get its ass kicked in a war with China, which is precisely why I support one.
This is no longer my country. Not only is it no longer my country, its government has become my oppressor. We are now a photonegative of our former self, a Soviet Union of the 21st century.
I took not a little joy in seeing this government humiliated in Afghanistan, and my response to a war lost to China will be the same.
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.
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?
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.
Video.
How AP, Reuters And SCMP Propagandize Their Readers Against China
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!
Drudge report reporting this “news” to the American people.
This report by the South China Morning Post, based on AP and Reuters items, is a perfect example for that:
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:
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:
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:
…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’.
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 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
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
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...
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.
Then there’s this… .
According to former MI6 deputy director Nigel Inkster, Xi Jinping is losing patience, and China is “edging closer” to confrontation with the US over Taiwan.
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
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 coalition of North American human rights organizations has released a report on the impact and consequences of US sanctions. The report is based on wide-ranging research and interviews with citizens in countries which are suffering under US sanctions.
The report reveals a reality which western media rarely or never reports.
One finding is that US sanctions hurt the poor, have resulted in thousands of deaths and “humanitarian exemptions” do not work. Another finding is that more than 70% of the world nations officially condemn US sanctions as violating international law and the UN Charter.
A free PDF copy of the report can be downloaded from…
A top official at Russian natural gas producer Novatek who was arrested in the United States last week on tax charges says he is innocent and will “vigorously” fight the case.
“On Thursday I was indicted for baseless tax charges that I already settled through a voluntary program, and pleaded not guilty. I will vigorously fight these charges and will continue to discuss gas topics as normal,” Mark Gyetvay, the deputy chairman of Novatek’s management board, said in a tweet on September 26.
The U.S. Department of Justice announced on September 23 that Gyetvay had been arrested on tax charges related to $93 million hidden in offshore accounts. He faces up to 20 years in prison if convicted.
Gyetvay, who holds passports from both the United States and Russia, was released on a $80 million bond by a Florida judge, according to court filings.
As an American citizen, Gyetvay is required to pay U.S. taxes on his worldwide income even if he spends most of the year in Russia.
The 64-year old has been the face of Novatek to the Western investment community for more than a decade, conducting the quarterly earnings conference calls with stock and bond investors as well as speaking at industry conferences.
Novatek is Russia’s largest independent natural gas producer and analysts say its phenomenal rise from a bit player in the early 2000s to a $79 billion company today — not far behind BP’s $89 billion market value — is due in large part to the company’s connections to the Kremlin.
Gennady Timchenko, a key Novatek shareholder, is considered a close associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Their friendship goes back to the early 1990s.
The United States has been seeking to reduce Europe’s reliance on Russian energy over the years, including blocking the launch of Nord Stream 2, a pipeline designed to carry natural gas directly to Germany via Baltic Sea.
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline will reroute gas currently transiting Ukraine, depriving Kyiv of as much as $2 billion in revenue. The United States has called it a political project aimed at hurting Russia’s smaller neighbor.
The project was completed earlier this month and is now awaiting certification by German and European authorities, a process that could take several months.
In the meantime, European gas prices have surged to a record high amid a supply crunch. Washington is now accusing Russia of withholding additional natural gas supplies to Europe via Ukraine in order to pressure authorities to certify Nord Stream 2.
“Another laugher!!!” Gyetvay said in a tweet two days before his arrest after a U.S. official expressed concern that Russia was not sending enough gas to Europe. “Who tried to impose relentless sanctions while promoting [U.S. liquefied natural gas to Europe?] Reality — we need ALL gas. Period.”
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.
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…
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 nuclearmedium or intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Japaneseterritory. The offer of U.S.-controlled missiles will act to preventJapanfromdeciding to build its own nuclear weaponcapabilityin response to the Chinese threat, thuspreventing ...
-China’s Nuclear Threat Against Japan: Hybrid Warfare
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*
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?
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?
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.
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.
"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.
“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.
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 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.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
"...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.
"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."
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.
“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.
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.
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
Video.
I am interested in hearing what the readers read in their local news about these systems being made and mass-produced in China. Can you please enlightening me.
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
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)
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.
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
Movie screenshot.
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
This part of the war come with a touching story.
.
A few dozen PLA soldiers on the front line froze to death in a position of combat readiness. They dared not move simply becuse doing so would expose their position and alert the American forces.
.
Their self sacrifice enabled the sudden strike against the well armed American forces in the middle of the night.
.
The PLA foot soldiers fought the American tanks, fighter jets and other lethal weapons with strategy, self sacrifice and human will, and eventually forced the 16 most powerful and wealthy Western nation forces (at that time) back more than 500km from the Chinese border, and forced them to begin to hold peace talks.
.
(An interesting note: Mao famously said in the beginning of the Korean war: we will let them decide how long to fight this war, we will fight till we win)
.
This is an example of peace with the West can only be achieved by fighting back hard. This is like the Afghanistan foot soldiers taking 20 years to defeat the same group of Western barbarians and forced them to leave their holy motherland .
.
Do you think that this movie will be permitted to play in the USA, the UK or Austalia or do you think that those nations will bank it for “national security”?
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.
Well, things are coming in in isolation; in drips and dabs. But we are slowly piecing together a picture of what transpired during 2020 when President Trump and his army of neocons threw everything (minus the kitchen sink) at China. And it all failed.
In October, leading up into the November elections, was a desperate time. And President Trump was increasingly frustrated with the turn of events that he set in motion.
We know now, that in February 2020, China went DEFCON ONE and blamed the United States for unleashing a bio-weapon on China during it’s most important holiday. We also know that they stayed at military readiness throughout the year, and successfully stopped hybrid-war efforts on all fronts. The NED sponsored “Color Revolutions” in Hong Kong, Tibet and Xinjiang all collapsed.
In October, the largest flotilla of aircraft carriers ever assembled in the history of the world sailed home without incident from the South China Sea, and immediately Donald Trump fired his military leadership. Right then, and there. No explanation was given, and the mainstream media were all perplexed, and quickly forgot about the incident.
What happened after this defeat without a shot being fired is unknown, but now a general is speaking out and what he reports is horrific.
This is what happened immediately after the Naval Flotilla returned home without incident, and the top military leadership was fired…
The “news” reports
Top general was so fearful Trump might spark war that he made secret calls to his Chinese counterpart, new book says
Twice in the final months of the Trump administration, the country’s top military officer was so fearful that the president’s actions might spark a war with China that he moved urgently to avert armed conflict.
In a pair of secret phone calls, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, that the United States would not strike, according to a new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward and national political reporter Robert Costa.
One call took place on Oct. 30, 2020, four days before the election that unseated President Donald Trump, and the other on Jan. 8, 2021, two days after the Capitol siege carried out by his supporters in a quest to cancel the vote.
The first call was prompted by Milley’s review of intelligence suggesting the Chinese believed the United States was preparing to attack. That belief, the authors write, was based on tensions over military exercises in the South China Sea, and deepened by Trump’s belligerent rhetoric toward China.
“General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay,” Milley told him. “We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you.”
In the book’s account, Milley went so far as to pledge he would alert his counterpart in the event of a U.S. attack, stressing the rapport they’d established through a backchannel. “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”
Li took the chairman at his word, the authors write in the book, “Peril,” which is set to be released next week.
In the second call, placed to address Chinese fears about the events of Jan. 6, Li wasn’t as easily assuaged, even after Milley promised him, “We are 100 percent steady. Everything’s fine. But democracy can be sloppy sometimes.”
Li remained rattled, and Milley, who did not relay the conversation to Trump, according to the book, understood why. The chairman, 62 at the time and chosen by Trump in 2018, believed the president had suffered a mental decline after the election, the authors write, a view he communicated to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a phone call on Jan. 8. He agreed with her evaluation that Trump was unstable, according to a call transcript obtained by the authors.
Believing that China could lash out if it felt at risk from an unpredictable and vengeful American president, Milley took action. The same day, he called the admiral overseeing the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, the military unit responsible for Asia and the Pacific region, and recommended postponing the military exercises, according to the book. The admiral complied.
Milley also summoned senior officers to review the procedures for launching nuclear weapons, saying the president alone could give the order — but, crucially, that he, Milley, also had to be involved. Looking each in the eye, Milley asked the officers to affirm that they had understood, the authors write, in what he considered an “oath.”
The chairman knew that he was “pulling a Schlesinger,” the authors write, resorting to measures resembling the ones taken in August 1974 by James R. Schlesinger, the defense secretary at the time. Schlesinger told military officials to check with him and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs before carrying out orders from President Richard M. Nixon, who was facing impeachment at the time.
Though Milley went furthest in seeking to stave off a national security crisis, his alarm was shared throughout the highest ranks of the administration, the authors reveal. CIA Director Gina Haspel, for instance, reportedly told Milley, “We are on the way to a right-wing coup.”
The book’s revelations quickly made Milley a target of GOP ire.
Trump, speaking Tuesday evening on the conservative television network Newsmax, labeled the chairman’s reported actions “treason” and said, “I did not ever think of attacking China.”
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote a letter to President Biden. Urging him to dismiss the Joint Chiefs chairman, saying he had undermined the commander in chief and “contemplated a treasonous leak of classified information to the Chinese Communist Party in advance of a potential armed conflict …”
A White House spokeswoman earlier Tuesday declined to comment on the book. Milley’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
“Peril” also provides new reporting on Biden’s 2020 campaign — waged to unseat a man he told a top adviser “isn’t really an American president” — and his early struggle to govern. During a March 5 phone call to discuss Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus plan, his first major legislative undertaking, the president reportedly told Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va), “if you don’t come along, you’re really f—ing me.” The measure ultimately cleared the Senate through an elaborate sequencing of amendments designed to satisfy the centrist Democrat.
The president’s frustration with Manchin is matched only by his debt to House Majority Whip Rep. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, whose endorsement before that state’s primary propelled Biden to the nomination and gave rise to promises about how he would govern.
When Clyburn offered his endorsement in February 2020, it came with conditions, according to the book. One was that Biden would commit to naming a Black woman to the Supreme Court, if given the opportunity. During a debate two days later, Clyburn went backstage during a break to urge Biden to reveal his intentions for the Supreme Court that night. Biden issued the pledge in his final answer, and the congressman endorsed him the next day.
“Peril,” the authors say, is based on interviews with more than 200 people, conducted on the condition they not be named as sources.
Exact quotations or conclusions are drawn from the participant in the described event, a colleague with direct knowledge or relevant documents, according to an author’s note. Trump and Biden declined to be interviewed.
On Afghanistan, the book examines how Biden’s experience as vice president shaped his approach to the withdrawal. Convinced that President Barack Obama had been manipulated by his own commanders, Biden vowed privately in 2009, “The military doesn’t f— around with me.”
“Peril” also documents how Biden’s top advisers spent the spring weighing, but ultimately rejecting, alternatives to a full withdrawal. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin returned from a NATO meeting in March envisioning ways to extend the mission, including through a “gated” withdrawal seeking diplomatic leverage. But they came to see that meaningful leverage would require a more expansive commitment, and instead came back around to a full exit.
Milley, for his part, took what the authors describe as a deferential approach to Biden on Afghanistan, in contrast to his earlier efforts to constrain Trump. The book reveals recent remarks the chairman delivered to the Joint Chiefs in which he said, “Here’s a couple of rules of the road here that we’re going to follow. One is you never, ever ever box in a president of the United States. You always give him decision space.” Referring to Biden, he said, “You’re dealing with a seasoned politician here who has been in Washington, D.C., 50 years, whatever it is.”
His decision just months earlier to place himself between Trump and potential war was triggered by several important events — a phone call, a photo op and a refusal to rule out war with another adversary, Iran.
The immediate motivation, according to the book, was the Jan. 8 call from Pelosi, who demanded to know, “What precautions are available to prevent an unstable president from initiating military hostilities or from accessing the launch codes and ordering a nuclear strike?” Milley assured her that there were “a lot of checks in the system.”
The call transcript obtained by the authors shows Pelosi telling Milley, referring to Trump, “He’s crazy. You know he’s crazy. … He’s crazy and what he did yesterday is further evidence of his craziness.” Milley replied, “I agree with you on everything.”
Milley’s resolve was deepened by the events of June 1, 2020, when he felt Trump had used him as part of a photo op in his walk across Lafayette Square during protests that began after the killing of George Floyd. The chairman came to see his role as ensuring that, “We’re not going to turn our guns on the American people and we’re not going to have a ‘Wag the Dog’ scenario overseas,” the authors quote him saying privately.
Trump’s posture, not just to China but also to Iran, tested that promise. In discussions about Iran’s nuclear program, Trump declined to rule out striking the country, at times even displaying curiosity about the prospect, according to the book. Haspel was so alarmed after a meeting in November that she called Milley to say, “This is a highly dangerous situation. We are going to lash out for his ego?”
Trump’s fragile ego drove many decisions by the nation’s leaders, from lawmakers to the vice president, according to the book. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was so worried that a call from President-elect Biden would send Trump into a fury that the then-Majority Leader used a backchannel to fend off Biden. He asked Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, formerly the No. 2 Senate Republican, to ask Sen. Christopher A. Coons, the Democrat of Delaware and close Biden ally, to tell Biden not to call him.
So intent was Pence on being Trump’s loyal second-in-command — and potential successor — that he asked confidants if there were ways he could accede to Trump’s demands and avoid certifying the results of the election on Jan. 6. In late December, the authors reveal, Pence called Dan Quayle, a former vice president and fellow Indiana Republican, for advice.
Quayle was adamant, according to the authors. “Mike, you have no flexibility on this. None. Zero. Forget it. Put it away,” he said.
But Pence pressed him, the authors write, asking if there were any grounds to pause the certification because of ongoing legal challenges. Quayle was unmoved, and Pence ultimately agreed, according to the book.
When Pence said he planned to certify the results, the president lashed out. In the Oval Office on Jan. 5, the authors write, Pence told Trump he could not thwart the process, that his role was simply to “open the envelopes.”
“I don’t want to be your friend anymore if you don’t do this,” Trump replied, according to the book, later telling his vice president, “You’ve betrayed us. I made you. You were nothing.”
Within days, Trump was out of office, his governing power reduced to nothing. But if stability had returned to Washington, Milley feared it would be short-lived, the authors write.
The general saw parallels between Jan. 6 and the 1905 Russian Revolution, which set off unrest throughout the Russian Empire and, though it failed, helped create the conditions for the October Revolution of 1917, in which the Bolsheviks executed a successful coup that set up the world’s first communist state. Vladimir Lenin, who led the revolution, called 1905 a “dress rehearsal.”
A similar logic could apply with Jan. 6, Milley thought as he wrestled with the meaning of that day, telling senior staff:
“What you might have seen was a precursor to something far worse down the road.”
MM Comments
Here on MM we have long documented all the events listed herein. I have a couple indexes on it all. We discussed the covert, overt, and “black sides” of a war with China. We discussed the 11 biological attacks, and the various military operations. We discussed everything from drones spraying bio-weapons to devastate livestock, to political bullshit. We also discussed the idea that the United States would conduct a first-use of nuclear weapons against China.
And people laughed at us.
And it turns out that we were correct.
President trump and his army of neocons were indeed planning first strike attacks upon China. And that, we now know, would have resulted in a retaliatory Chinese nuclear salvo against the top 40 American cities.
President trump and his cabal of neocons declared war on China in 2016. When he became president, he immediately put neocons in charge of all the strategy positions relative for war. Such as John Bolton in charge of the Bio-Weapons systems. He then waged a “hybrid-war” against China.
Aside from all the public efforts; tariffs, Huawei, 5G, QUAD, Australia, etc, he also engaged in aggressive “black operations” that included “color revolutions“, as well as trying to induce starvation through bio-weapons.
All efforts failed.
By 2019, and during the lead up towards elections, Donald Trump wanted to step up his anti-China campaign. His reelection to a second term depended on his ability to be a “war President”. So starting in mid 2019 he launched an “inoculation strain” of COVID in the USA and all of it’s allies. And then in late 2019, he released the “lethal B” strain against China, Iran and North Korea.
All of 2020 was fought with biological weapons.
Simultaneously with the Chinese people collapsing due to seizures due to the lethal B strain, an enormous “fire hose” of anti-China disinformation was unleashed. And for a while it worked.
But not as planned.
The strains mutated, and the “inoculation strain” did not protect Americans.
Then, in March 2020 he decided to go Kinetic and launched two more very serious bio-weapons against China. (For a total of three lethal bio-weapons.)
And yet again, China survived, and thrived.
So, he got together the largest Naval flotilla in the history of the world and set sail for China. But no incidents occurred, and he fired his top military leadership as a result. We now know why. Donald Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper because he did not engage in a “hot” kinetic war with China.
And Donald Trump was COUNTING on that war to be initiated during elections. And always, historically, there are insanely positive polling results for a President during the initial weeks of a war.
So then President Trump went to his generals, and as we now know, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was afraid that Donald Trump would order him to conduct a “hot” kinetic war with China.
Now, China, after four years of “hybird-war”, and full knowledge about the bio-weapons attacks and the “color revolutions”…
After all, China shares Intel with Russia, and has all of Hong Kong wired up in audio and video... as well as all those CIA / NED "assets" on the mainland, now filled with pro-china patriotic fervor turning themselves in and working with the PLA...
Knew full well what was going on.
After all, China was at DEFCON ONE all year. (And still is, by the way.) And appreciated the candor of the American military leadership, but do not trust any Americans any longer. Which is why they are refusing to talk with Biden, or having a US Ambassador inside of China. (As of right now at the time of this article.)
And now, the Chinese leadership is very “closed” to the United States.
We know that President Biden has been inside of China and understands that a war with China would devastate the United States. And it would. Let’s not fool ourselves.
But, President Bidden is a figurehead only.
The United States is a Military Empire, and the military-industrial establishment and neocon K-street are “calling the shots”. They run things. They control budgets, and they control the Military. They control the State Department (as the entire world observed during the April 2021 Anchorage meeting), and they control the American people though advanced media manipulation.
This knowledge of what China is, and what it capable of is useless, as the people who control the reins of power think otherwise. All the war provocations seem to originate out for the bureaucracy and industrial self-interest rather than top-down directed orders.
No matter how harsh the United States might be against China today, it is nothing compared to what would happen were another neocon to become President in 2024.
Tom Cotton
Mike Pompeo
Marco Rubio
Heaven help us all.
Dangerous people.
In expectation of a bad situation going “tits up” both Russia and China have prepared first-strike (nuclear) scenarios to counter any possibility of the intentional American nightmare unleashed upon the world.
Make no mistake that they are in place and being studied for every contingency.
The Chinese plan for every contingency.
The Chinese and the Russians are not fools. And as I have said over and over and over.
China. Does. Not. Play.
Which means that they are a serious, serious, merit driven nation. And when they do decide to do something, they do it with precision and ruthlessness. You might not want to hear it, you might want to believe that democracy is on “God’s side”, or that Chinese are just “copy-cats” who cannot innovate. You can believe whatever you want.
Expect full-on Asian (China & Russia) readiness to be in place right now today.
They are ready to hurt others really, really bad. China is mass producing nuclear warheads like they used to make rubber ducky’s. The assembly lines and production lines are running hot. Much like the printing presses in America are turning red hot printing US “greenback” dollars.
Not only that, but on all levels they have mustered and created a unified Asia.
And a word to the wise. They do not believe in “surgical strikes”. They believe in pounding cities into oblivion. They have their own history as a template.
Maybe payback time for the rape of Nanjing…
Hopefully level heads will persist at the highest levels of government in Washington DC for the next decade or so. But do not count on it. We can hope, but must be realistic.
But if the world can tone down the insanity that the United States has become, then the rest of the world will be able to take a breather and the entire world can move forward in peace.
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.
Here’s another post that you simply will not find anywhere else on the Internet. And, you know, I tire of my own sluggishness in trying to understand the great failure of the American “free media”. Even I realize that there is no such thing as actual “news” in the West, but really guys it’s not too FUCKING DIFFICULT. You look for what is not being reported and stay alert for distractions.
What’s the biggest distraction this August 2021?
Why it is the fucked up, terribly botched evacuation of American military out of Kabul, Afghanistan. That’s ONE FUCK of a distraction.
Ok, then, let’s scour the “news” for oddities and pieces that might point to a major event that the United States government might want to hide, or distract others from looking into.
And, whoa…
But first a major comment from Singapore.
Turn up your speaker and listen to these wise words. And if you don’t understand them, play them over and over (on repeat) until it sinks into your fucking skull. Deprogram your mind God damn it. Click on the picture and watch the video until you tire of the simple, simple message.
A missing special operations submarine in the South China Sea
There have been substantive black operations in and around Taiwan since 2019. In all, the Untied States Navy has been doing all sorts of things in the area along the coasts of China and Taiwan. And after the April 2021 Anchorage, Alaska “meeting”, China laid down the line. They established “Red Lines” that WILL result in military conflict if they are ignored.
Of course, the brain dead people (are they actually people?) in Washington DC dismiss these threats as simple “posturing” and rhetoric.
There is every evidence to suggest that the United States has been conducting illegal and sensitive black operations inside of Chinese and Taiwan territories, and that China took aggressive military action against them. Or in other words, sank the submarines and set the hundreds of sailors and SEALs to their deaths in steel coffins in the deep dark seas.
American Submarines break cover
The U.S. Navy rarely publicizes even the routine operations of its own submarines. Stealth, both tactical and operational, is the Silent Service’s greatest strength, after all. But the Americans made a series of exceptions in June as new Chinese and Russian subs surfaced.
The Navy posted photos of the Washington-based USS Seawolf sailing alongside the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson off Hawaii on June 22, 2021 the same time a Russian naval task force was exercising near the island.
The 353-foot-long, nuclear-powered Seawolf is the lead vessel in a three-ship class that also includes USS Jimmy Carter, the U.S. fleet’s secretive special-mission submarine. Jimmy Carter also made a rare appearance when an airline-passenger photographed the boat sailing from San Diego towards Hawaii on June 8, 2021.
Seawolf and her sister USS Connecticut are bigger and faster than the newer Virginia-class attack boats are and, in many ways, represent the future of undersea warfare more than the Virginias do.
The Navy optimized the Virginias for land-attack missions with Tomahawk cruise missiles, at the expense of their anti-submarine capabilities. But with the Chinese and Russian sub fleets steadily growing more powerful—the new Type 039 and Belgorod are exhibits A and B—the Americans want their next attack boat to be fast and heavily-armed with greater numbers of torpedoes and mines.
In other words, more like a Seawolf. Not coincidentally, the Navy also released a photo of sailors in Crete loading Mark 67 mines on the Los Angeles-class attack sub USS Montpelier on June 22.
Amid a wider collapse in U.S. long-range naval planning, the administration of U.S. president Joe Biden remains committed to spending as much as half of the Navy’s shipbuilding budget—around $20 billion annually—on attack submarines, including the next-generation SSN(X).
“The recent uptick in submarine images released by the U.S. Navy is quite noticeable,” tweeted Chris Cavas, host of the CavasShips Podcast. “Remembering that submarine have pride-of-place in Department of the Navy budget calculations.”
So, we know that the US Navy is all over the South China Sea
But it is more than that.
We notice and are paying attending to what they are actually doing. Their movements are all recorded in great detail. With the most obvious being the surface ships, and the aircraft. Not so well known are the movements of the “Black Operations” submarines.
All 2021 has been stories about major Naval Operations in the South Pacific Sea.
The “excuse” has always been to protect the freedom of navigation in those waters off the Chinese coast. But that excuse is just that.
A fucking excuse.
Any person with half a brain cell and who knows what a globe looks like can easily see that the USN is up to no good. But Americans have been dumbed down so terribly that they are lucky to be able to hold a spoon, let alone calculate how to count to ten.
Think people!
Think!
And we know that ALL of the “Special Operations” submarines are in operation all around Taiwan
How do we know?
It’s by deduction. Duh!
We know that the submarines work work in covert operations and carry SEAL teams. While they perform such tasks as tapping into fiber optic undersea cables and the like, they are all equipped with landing bays that carry “miniature troop insertion submarines” designed to carry SEAL teams close to the coastlines for insertion into “enemy territory”.
And they are all rotating in and around Hawaii. Are they planning to invade Bora Bora? Performing secretive missions around Tahiti? Going to lay secret operations in Pago Pago?
Special Operations submarines showing the landing bays for the SEAL secretive assault troops.
The four converted ballistic missile submarines are so much more than Tomahawk slingers and transports for Navy SEALs.
Today, the U.S. Navy’s quartet of converted Ohio class nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines, or SSGNs, are among America’s most powerful, in-demand, and flexible weapons. These giant and secretive submarines are known for their ability to carry up to 154 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles and dozens of special operations frogmen into contested territory to ply their quiet trade, but really, they are much, much more than that.
A decade and a half ago, the U.S. Navy was testing incredible new capabilities that it would subsequently integrate into its four yet to be converted SSGNs, including one highly elaborate, but obscure proof of concept exercise that solidified the SSGN concept for the seagoing service. Here is the story of how these vessels came to be and the highly unique, if not exotic capabilities, from drone mothership to command and control center, they possess.
The Genesis of the Ohio SSGN
The decision to covert Ohio class SSBNs into SSGNs originated with the 1994 Nuclear Posture Review, which determined that only 14 of the 18 Ohio class boats were necessary to meet the United States’ nuclear deterrence needs. Eight years later, the Navy began actually converting the four oldest Ohio class submarines – USS Florida, USS Georgia, USS Michigan, and USS Ohio – into the new configuration.
The Navy had considered a number of potential configuration options for the new SSGNs. The concept that the service finally settled on retained 22 of the 24 missile tubes found on Ohio SSBNs, but modified them so that they were unable to fire Trident D5 nuclear-tipped submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). Instead, each one would be able to launch up to seven BGM-109 Tomahawks using a Multiple All-Up-Round Canister (MAC) adapter. The SLBM fire control systems were similarly replaced with ones for the Tomahawk.
Tubes one and two on each of the four SSGNs would be completely replaced with lockout chambers so combat divers and Navy SEALs could enter and exit the submarine underwater. Personnel could also install a Dry Deck Shelter (DDS) to the top of the hull linked to either one of these modified tubes, or both if required, which could accommodate swimmer delivery vehicle (SDV) mini-submarines. As the name suggests, the DDS provides a fully enclosed, dry space to work in on the submarine’s deck, even while it is underwater.
The abortive Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) was supposed to have been able to directly dock with either one of these lockout chambers, as well. The Navy canceled the ASDS program in 2009 after cost overruns and other major setbacks, including a fire that had destroyed the original prototype the year before.
With a DDS installed, a number of additional tubes on the SSGNs would also be blocked off, so the Navy decided to make tubes three through 10 reconfigurable into storage space, if necessary. A dedicated berthing area for a typical contingent of 66 special operators, with a surge capacity of up 102 personnel, was added in the reconfigured missile compartment, as well.
More recent reporting has indicated that a typical load for these submarines is around 100 Tomahawks. This most likely represents between 14 and 16 fully loaded tubes, which would equate to between 98 and 112 missiles in total. This would leave between six and eight tubes available for storage or other purposes, something we will come back to later on in the story.
Beyond that, the SSGN configuration had an all-new a dedicated special operations mission control center and associated mission planning spaces.
It also included additional and improved sensor and communications antenna masts on the sail.
Other modifications that would allow these submarines to better operate in shallower waters closer to shore, were also likely involved with the conversion.
An intelligence nerve center
It’s hard to overstate how significant the intelligence fusion capabilities demonstrated during Silent Hammer were. For the experiment, Georgia had an embarked joint service command team onboard, who used modified spaces in the submarine to run a forward operations center that controlled other assets under the waves, riding on the surface, in the air, and on land. This was intended to reflect the capabilities that the submarine would have after going through the SSGN conversion, which would create new, more robust mission spaces for command and control elements and intelligence gathering personnel, among others.
This was the first time the Navy had ever done this as part of the development of the SSGN concept of operations and it put the operational commanders right in the thick of things in a whole new way. Unlike traditional surface command ships, such as the USS Blue Ridge, the Georgia was allowing these officers and their staff to direct forward operations while sailing concealed below the surface of the ocean. The submarine’s command center was linked to rear command centers, and their intelligence networks, via satellite. It also had direct data-link feeds from a number of other sources.
In the air, these included the Pelican, a highly modified, pilot-optional Cessna 337 propeller-driven aircraft, and a specially configured Sabreliner twin-engine business jet. The Pelican belonged to the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Studies (CIRPAS) and was configured at the time in a way that matched the capabilities of the MQ-1 Predator drone.
The Lincoln Lab also had their heavily modified Boeing 707 airliner, nicknamed Hannah, a well-known cutting-edge communications and sensor testbed, in the air playing the role of a airborne radar with synthetic aperture and ground-moving-target indicator capabilities. This effectively made it, in part, a surrogate for a U.S. Air Force E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) battlefield management command and control aircraft.
Navy EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare planes and EP-3E Aries II intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft also took part in Trident Warrior and fed information into this network of information sources.
Down below, Georgia was networked together with other vessels taking part in Trident Warrior, including two Los Angeles class fast attack submarines, the USS La Jolla and USS Pittsburgh. In addition, members of the Silent Hammer experiment team were on board the first in class amphibious assault ship USS Tarawa and the Wasp class USS Bonhomme Richard, which were also taking part in the larger exercise.
Ashore, U.S. Navy SEALs, along with other unspecified attached special operators, likely including U.S. Air Force Joint Tactical Air Controllers (JTAC), were in direct contact with Georgia. They emplaced their own “unattended” sensors to monitor for potential hostile activity and otherwise fed even more data back to the submarine.
We also know that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) supplied unspecified payloads, as well as sensor systems for the exercise. Georgia itself demonstrated how she might launch unmanned aircraft and an unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV) during the exercise to support intelligence collection efforts.
The very same intelligence collection aircraft are operating in the airspace around Taiwan RIGHT NOW
Imagine that!
Just a coincidence, don’t you know!
More than 700 patrols were conducted by US vessels and aircraft in the South China Sea region in the past year, according to a report by the National Institute for South China Sea Studies (NISCSS). As the US never ratified theUN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), itsclaims of protecting "freedom of navigation" is rather hollow.
-ChinaPlus
Of course, you will never read about this in CNN, FOX “news”, Hall Turner, or Forbes. Those just provide bullshit for a dumbed down citizenry. Real secrets are secret.
But all over Chinese media are reports of these intelligence gathering aircraft, with videos of their interactions.
Reported that Davidson, by video link, to the U.S. think tank American enterprise research institute (AEI) talks. He declared that the Indo-Pacific region is one of the most critical regions in the world and will face many challenges between now and 2026.
Davidson spent much of his time describing the Pentagon's Pacific Deterrence Initiative, which he said was one of the priorities of the Department's annual budget.
The U.S. Army India-Pacific Command has reported to Congress that it will increase the program's budget from $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2021 to $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2022 and plans to spend $27.3 billion over the next five years, the report said.
-美印太司令部宣称“助台增强防御力、持续对台军售”，网友讽刺：台湾保护费要涨了！
But there is something very interesting going on…
These aircraft are not “loitering” as part of operations so much as flying “search and rescue” scans in the deep ocean South of the Taiwan Coast.
What are they looking for?
What is going on? Check out the video.
Searching for something.
This is not a “loitering” SEAL support protocol. It’s all over the place in a limited geographical region.
Not deploying sonar buoys.
Doing something else.
Other curious events…
The timing of all these unusual intelligent gathering aircraft in “searching and recovery” flight paths occurred at the SAME TIME as the US Navy, broke all diplomatic protocol to land on Taiwan and deliver a “package” containing a “message” to the Military Representative in Taiwan.
Yes. It must have been one fuck of an important package to risk getting shot down and starting world war III in the process.
Matt Drudge, ever the neocon (or whatever neocon interns he has running his site for him these days), is perhaps the biggest offender on this type of fake news. Right now if you go to his site, just the main page (drudgereport.com) you'll see *HUGE* red emblazoned text about "Marines in China!" and a giant picture of what looks like some sort of seafaring battalion of US troooooops getting ready to storm some shore or the other. He's worse than CNN, WaPo, WSJ or the NYT (of course he often links to those sources).
Interestingly, on actual left-leaning sites, there's nothing to be seen on the non-topic, but instead moooooore stories about Trump (they just can't stop themselves), the abortion bills and COVID related stuff.
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Oct 7 2021 21:41 utc | 32
Another day, same hype…
But what about proof?
Well, we all know that America is the most transparent and least secretive nation on the planet. It’s got that thing called “freedom”, and there is nothing more important than a “free press”. Right? So if they don’t report anything, that simply means that nothing is going on. Right?
Yada. Yada. Yada.
American view of themselves.
The United States is laying the foundations for a war.
That’s what is going on.
China realizes this and is getting mightily pissed. I can tell you that secret operations that go “tits up” are never recognized as an event. it is just hidden and compromised with other excuses.
When a submarine goes off the grid, the hundreds of sailors are quietly written off, and records state that they died in accidents.
The submarine itself is quietly “retired”, and nothing further is spoken of it.
Maybe one of these days the SEAL “Special Operations” submarines will sail into port without incidence.
You know like the broken and busted up Seawolf submarine that limped into Hawaii for “repairs” and urgent medical treatment for it’s crew when it had an incident in the South China Sea during “Mission 7”.
America will continue to wage a secretive war against China hidden away from public scrutiny up until nuclear weapons are detonated. Then we all won’t know what is going on, but we will know that America will be a radioactive wasteland no matter what happens in the rest of the world.
I told you all that the war would not be televised.
And it isn’t.
…
There are numerous missing submarines in the United States Navy. Not just the ones listed here, but attack submarines, and maybe even a “boomer”. All nuclear. And they are “sitting ducks” in the shallow South China Sea.
There’s a secret, silent war of stealth going on. If it goes visually kinetic, then it risks destroying the American economy “house of cards”. So this “war” must be hidden, quiet and done in stealth.
Most submarines are either sunk or “heavily damaged”. Those that are not sunk sail home “heavily damaged”. So far, we haven’t seem too many sail home damaged. But we will.
…
I would STRONGLY suggest you all watch the movie “Threads” to see the frightening similarities between this 1980’s movie and what is going on right now.
Oh…
And the mainstream press finally decides to report something….
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.
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.
"apositionofcontrolby a sovereign or stateoveranotherstate 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 stateState
A vassalstate 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”.
A suzerainty.
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…
The USA is out of control.
Some haggling seems to continue today but the outcome is assured.
Trump has something to say…
Yada, yada, yada.
Trump gives his two cents worth.
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?
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
The First Anglo-Afghan War: what happened?
Concerned that Russia was expanding its influence in the region, Britain invaded Afghanistan in 1839, ousting ruler Dost Mohammad and replacing him with Shah Shuja, who had been king from 1803–10.
Insurrections later broke out, compelling the British garrison to flee Kabul. Believing they had been promised safe passage, a large contingent of British and Indian forces attempted a retreat in January 1842, but were ambushed by Afghan troops, leading to the deaths of around 18,000 soldiers. Abandoned in Kabul, Shah Shuja was killed.
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.
The British Experience.
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.
The British Experience.
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.
The British Experience.
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.
The British Experience.
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.
The British Experience.
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
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.
Russians in Afghanistan.
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.
Russians in Afghanistan.
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.
A mujahideen group.
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).
Russians in Afghanistan.
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.
A mujahideen group.
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…
When the Soviet Union intervened in Afghanistan in December 1979, it set the stage for a decade-long quagmire, similar to the American 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.
Russian map of attack.
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.
The Panjshir V campaign began on May 15, 1982. The diversionary attack against Ghorband succeeded in fooling Massoud, who sent significant reinforcements to the Ghorband district in Parwan Province.
The next night, several Soviet reconnaissance companies advanced to the valley’s entrance; lead elements of 108th Division advanced a short way into the valley.
On the morning of May 17, the Soviets unleashed a massive aerial and artillery strike up and down the Panjshir Valley.
Then Soviet heliborne troops landed at key high points.
Even though Massoud was surprised by the move, his forces, armed with numerous ZPU-2 antiaircraft guns, managed to shoot down two helicopters and damage several others.
There was also severe fighting for control of the landing zones, but the Soviets had put dozens of gunships in the air, and the mujahideen were outgunned and had to withdraw.
In all, the six Soviet battalions were inserted.
In the meantime, elements of the 108th Division slowly advanced up the valley along a battalion-wide front.
The vanguard encountered a never-ending stream of man-made obstacles and land mines that had to be cleared by engineers and sappers deployed up front.
The mujahideen engaged the lead forces, sparking fierce and lopsided clashes as Soviet firepower and close air support were brought to bear.
There were dozens of small engagements as well, as Soviet forces cleared out the numerous canyons running out from the valley. In contrast to the pounding they were giving Soviet troops, the mujahideen left DRA troops largely alone.
This encouraged defections, so many that the Soviets had to pull several DRA units out of the valley.
In an effort to trap mujahideen forces engaging elements of the 108th Division on the second day of the advance, one Soviet and one Afghan battalion landed at the village of Mata, halfway up the valley.
Mujahideen forces there were quickly overcome, allowing the combined Soviet/DRA force to occupy the heights above the village.
The next day, a similar force landed at Astana, and on the 22nd two Soviet and two Afghan battalions landed at Evim, 60 miles inside the valley at an important crossroad through which the mujahideen received supplies and reinforcements.
The Evim operation was the scene of particularly heavy fighting as Massoud did not want a large enemy force on the ground so far up the valley. After sundown, several moutariksconverged on the landing zone and launched a determined assault on Soviet/DRA forces there.
The assaults were repelled with heavy losses.
Although impressive on paper, the landings did not prevent mujahideen forces from continuing to move at will throughout the valley. They knew the terrain too well and could move at night.
Nor did the heliborne insertions keep the mujahideen from withdrawing before a Soviet advance.
Massoud’s moutarikshad ample warning, as any Soviet attack was preceded by an artillery barrage lasting up to half an hour.
After the barrage, the moutarikswould pull back to a prepared position farther up the valley while a small rear guard sniped at the advancing column. Such tactics resulted in a steady trickle of Soviet casualties and vehicle losses and ensured that the moutarikssurvived to repeat the process.
The battle for Evim marked the end of Panjshir V. On May 25, Soviet forces began a gradual withdrawal to Bagram, completing it three days later.
Control of the valley was handed over to DRA units, but their bases were gradually overrun by the mujahideen. The Soviets returned to the valley in September and, after another impressive show of force, once again left DRA forces in control.
By the end of the year, however, Massoud’s forces regained effective control of the valley. In all, Panjshir V cost the Soviets 2,000 casualties, 17 tanks, and a dozen aircraft. DRA losses totaled 1,200, including numerous defectors. The mujahideen lost 180 fighters.
The civilian toll was much greater.
In 1983, Massoud signed a truce with the Soviets. By agreeing to a cease-fire, Massoud allowed his forces a chance to rest and re-arm. Other mujahideen commanders were furious, since the unilateral truce freed up Soviet forces for operations against them.
The Soviets returned to the Panjshir Valley in 1984. Informers in Kabul tipped the ISI, who informed Massoud and sent emergency supplies to him.
The Soviet offensive began on April 20 with a massive high-altitude bombardment by TU-16 bombers.
This was supported by SU-24 medium bombers that struck individual targets. After the air strikes, which did little more than bounce the rubble and announce the coming attack, the 108th Motor Rifle Division, along with the 8th and 20th Afghan Infantry Divisions, moved into the valley.
They advanced in typical Soviet fashion, with a long artillery barrage preceding every movement.
As the divisions made their way up the valley, airborne battalions landed behind villages and other suspected mujahideen strongpoints. The raids netted few prisoners—Massoud’s fighters simply avoided the valley floor and sniped at the ponderous Soviet column from surrounding hilltops.
Under such conditions, it took the 108th MRD eight days to advance 50 miles to the village of Khenj.
In the second part of the operation, several Soviet airborne battalions helicoptered into the valley’s side canyons in an attempt to cut off the mujahideen line of retreat.
In one instance, a Soviet battalion landed at the village of Dash-i-Ravat, 13 miles beyond the main advance. On a hilltop deep inside mujahideen territory, the battalion was badly exposed. Several moutariks converged on the landing area and inflicted heavy casualties on the isolated paratroopers.
By May 7, the Soviets felt that they had accomplished all of their objectives and gradually began withdrawing, again leaving DRA garrisons at various spots along the valley. These were highly vulnerable, and troops had to be resupplied by air.
In June 1985, Massoud’s forces attacked the DRA base at Peshghor. In a dawn attack, they penetrated the base’s minefield and stormed the defenses under cover of a rocket and mortar barrage. Afghan resistance collapsed. Massoud captured more than 400 prisoners, including five DRA colonels from Kabul.
When Mikhail Gorbachev took power in the Soviet Union in 1986, he announced plans for a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan, which he famously called “a bleeding wound.” Such a withdrawal required the DRA army to take the lead against the mujahideen.
The Ministry of Defense decided to launch an operation aimed at destroying the massive mujahideen facility at Zhawar Kili. Although planned by the Soviets, the assault would be a largely DRA operation, with the 7th, 8th, 14th, and 25th Infantry Divisions, the 38th Commando Brigade, and the Soviet 666th Air Assault Regiment in support. The attack was commanded by Afghan General Mohammed Delavar.
Zhawar was the center of mujahideen activity in Paktika Province; through it flowed 20 percent of the mujahideen supplies.
It was the site of an 11-cave storage facility housing a barracks, hospital, mosque, and electrical power plant. Zhawar fell under the purview of Jalaluddin Haqqani, a mujahideen commander loyal to the fundamentalist Hezb-Islami party.
Haqqani was regarded as a competent and brave leader, a favorite of the ISI and the United States.
As such, he received millions of dollars in military aid, including the much-vaunted Stinger missiles. Haqqani had stationed at Zhawar a permanent regiment of 500 fighters supported by nine ZSU-1 and ZSU-2 antiaircraft guns, a dozen M-12 multiple rocket launchers and two T-55 tanks.
Stationed north and east of Zhawar was a quartet of mujahideen units belonging to other parties. The complex lay south of Khost at the end of a canyon, a few miles from the Pakistani border.
The main route to Zhawar was through the Manay Kandow Pass, whose entrance was dominated by the mountainous Dharwi Ghar.
Atop Dhawri Ghar was a cave protected by a large overhang.
The DRA assault began on April 2. After a massive artillery barrage, a half dozen MI-8 helicopters landed a battalion of the 38th Commando Brigade east of Zhawar, unknowingly inside Pakistan.
The battalion quickly came under heavy attack by the mujahideen, and Delavar decided to insert the rest of the brigade into the fight.
Dozens of helicopters flew over the battlefield and landed Afghan commands on the heights east of Zhawar.
The mujahideen shot down three helicopters and destroyed several more on the ground. Haqqani’s fighters attacked the landing zones, over-running four. He also brought in reinforcements from Pakistan.
The combined force enveloped and pounded the trapped commandos, killing dozens and capturing nearly 600.
In the meantime, Soviet bombers pounded the cave complexes, collapsing the entrances to a pair and trapping more than 150 mujahideen, including Haqqani who, although badly wounded, managed to escape.
For three days DRA forces, the 7th Infantry Division in the west and the 8th Infantry Division in the east, tried and failed to blast their way through the mujahideen positions.
After suffering heavy casualties and exhausting their ammunition, the two divisions pulled back. In their place, the 14th and 25th Infantry Divisions moved up and attacked mujahideen fighters holding Manay Kandow Pass.
This attack, too, went nowhere as mujahideen inside the caves were invulnerable to air and artillery strikes.
After 10 days of fruitless efforts, Delavar called off the attack.
While artillery and aircraft pounded the region, the DRA resupplied and reinforced its exhausted units. Delavar was sacked.
The offensive was restarted on April 17 with a two-pronged assault; the 25th Infantry Division advanced on the east while the 14th Infantry Division moved on the west.
Like its predecessor, the 25th Infantry Division encountered heavy resistance. DRA commanders finally decided to forgo the standard massive artillery preparation in favor of a snap attack that took the mujahideen by surprise and swept them from the mountain. DRA forces pushed out to the east and outflanked the remaining mujahideen facing them. Haqqani was wounded again, and rumors that he had been killed demoralized the mujahideen.
With no one to rally the mujahideen forces, Zhawar fell later that day. DRA troops and Soviet advisers rigged the complex with explosives and destroyed the extensive stores.
That night, the head of the Hezb-Islami party, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, launched a counterattack, but patrols approaching Zhawar found the base abandoned. The battle had cost the mujahideen 100 dead, as well as the vast stores at Zhawar.
The DRA lost 1,500 dead or wounded, 500 prisoners, and 13 aircraft.
The base at Zhawar was back in mujahideen hands 48 hours after the DRA abandoned it.
By the beginning of 1989, the situation in Afghanistan had changed radically. The influx of American-supplied Stinger missiles had given the mujahideen a powerful weapon with which to counter Soviet/Afghan airpower.
In Pakistan, President Zia ul-Haq and the head of the ISI had been killed in a plane crash.
That February, the last Soviet forces withdrew from the country.
The seven mujahideen parties formed an interim government in waiting. The alliance was eager to go on the offensive; its leadership felt that a large show of force would bring about the final collapse of the Communist regime.
Their target was Jalalabad, at the foot of the Hindu Kush. Connecting it to the Khyber Pass to the east and Kabul 33 miles to the west, Highway 1 ran right through the city. A few miles east was the Kunar River; the Samarkel Ridge commanded the highway.
By taking the city, the mujahideen alliance hoped to demoralize the DRA and grab a swath of the country that they would declare “Free Afghanistan.” From there, they planned to go for the jugular and attack Kabul. The operation was carried out with the full approval of the new head of the ISI, General Hamid Gul. The DRA had plenty of time to prepare for the attack.
Stationed in Jalalabad were the 11th Infantry Division and the 1st Border Brigade. The government had filled the ranks with replacements and stockpiled supplies in the city. The DRA units manned a formidable ring of defenses including concrete bunkers, minefields, and barbed wire.
Some 7,000 mujahideen gathered for the assault, with contributions from all seven of the major parties and an eighth group of well-equipped Arab jihadi led by a rich Saudi calling himself Abu Abdullah.
His real name was Osama bin Laden.
Other important contingents were personally led by Massoud and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Like Massoud, Hekmatyar had attended school in Kabul, where he studied engineering.
In the mid-1970s, he founded the Hezb-Islami party, which sought to establish an Islamic caliphate in Afghanistan in the mold of Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, whom he greatly admired. Hekmatyar was virulently anti-Soviet, but also anti-American. Seeking to consolidate power, he had also waged war on other mujahideen parties. He was a bitter rival of Massoud.
The campaign began in early March 1989 with a mujahideen assault on Samarkel Ridge. Supported by a massive rocket and mortar barrage, the mujahideen took the ridge after three days of fighting.
The mujahideen then fought their way into the village of Samarkel on the ridge’s western slope. The next target was Jalalabad airfield, which they attacked on March 8.
There, the mujahideen went up against a battalion of crack DRA troops who held their ground in the face of several determined assaults. Advancing behind a line of T-55 tanks captured at Samarkel, the mujahideen finally managed to take the airport, but the DRA counterattacked later that day and retook it.
Four days into the battle for the airport, a battalion of DRA Special Guards was flown in from Kabul. The frontal assaults continued until late March, with the mujahideen suffering more than 1,400 casualties. DRA forces lost 1,000.
Tired of seeing their fighters impaled on the defenses of Jalalabad, mujahideen commanders decided to starve the city into submission. Unfortunately for them, the siege was not airtight.
Some commanders along the highway allowed convoys to slip through in exchange for a portion of the supplies. And since the DRA still held the airport, the Soviets were able to resupply government forces from the air.
Mujahideen commanders also had difficulty coordinating attacks, with many unwilling to make the first move for fear their men would bear the brunt of the fighting. What attacks were carried out were badly exposed to Soviet high-level bombing and Scud missile attacks.
By July, the mujahideen siege had collapsed. On July 6, the DRA launched a counterattack aimed of Samarkel Ridge, which they took two days later. In defeat, the rivalry between Massoud and Hekmatyar slipped into outright war, with the two parties fighting each other throughout the rest of the year.
The Communist regime in Kabul managed to stay in power until 1992, falling only after the Soviet Union itself broke up.
A fractious mujahideen coalition led by the Jamaat-i-Islami failed to bring peace and was ousted by the Taliban in 1996. For the next five years, the Afghan resistance called the Northern Alliance was led by Massoud.
He was assassinated on September 9, 2001—two days before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. Haqqani became a minister in the Taliban government and, on September 29 he was appointed commander of Taliban forces.
He fights on today out of Waziristan, having survived several American attempts to kill him. Hekmatyar still leads the Hezb-Islami party, which is closely allied with the exiled Taliban. He too has survived numerous assassination attempts.
Despite losing nearly 15,000 troops in a decade-long incursion, Soviet commanders never grasped the concept that, in order to defeat an insurgency, they first must win the loyalty of the civilian population. Their oafish tactics had the opposite effect.
By forcing millions into refugee camps in Pakistan, they created a limitless pool of angry youth from which the mujahideen could recruit more troops. The war could never have been won so long as Pakistan remained a mujahideen safe haven. American and NATO forces in Afghanistan today confront exactly the same problem, and like their Soviet predecessors two decades ago, they have to date devised no workable solutions.
The ravaged nation remains a bleeding wound in the seemingly endless war on terror.
Lessons for Leaders: What Afghanistan Taught Russian and Soviet Strategists
Thirty years ago this month, Gen. Boris Gromov became the last serviceman of the Soviet 40th Army to cross the Friendship bridge from Afghanistan into Uzbekistan, heralding the end of a Soviet military intervention that had lasted nearly a decade.
That intervention, which began in December 1979 (with 30 military advisors and some guards remaining beyond February 1989), did not only fail to firmly anchor Afghanistan to the so-called socialist camp, as the Soviet Politburo had hoped, but contributed to the demise of the USSR by imposing formidable human, financial, economic, political and reputational costs on the already declining empire; needless to say, it caused numerous casualties and widespread grievances among Afghans as well.
Debates continue to this day about the full array of national-level, organizational-level and personal-level factors that led the Communist Party leadership—including General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev and a handful of other Politburo members—to adopt a resolution on Dec. 12, 1979, authorizing the deployment of a “limited contingent of Soviet troops” to Afghanistan.
However, even with that debate unfinished, the Soviet experience in Afghanistan offers plenty of lessons to explore—some of which can, perhaps, be applied by the U.S. and its allies as Washington leans toward ending its own military campaign in this war-plagued Central Asian country.
The following is a selection of military-political lessons gleaned mostly from the recollections of Soviet strategists who were involved in making and executing the fateful decision to send troops to Afghanistan, as well as from writings by some of post-Soviet Russia’s prominent military analysts.
Where possible, the author made an effort to relay these strategists’ analysis of the failures and successes of the intervention because he felt that such assessments, based on first-hand experience, are not always given their due in English-language literature on the subject.
The lessons listed below, which are discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections of this research paper, are lined up in the order in which they would have come up—starting with the Soviet leadership’s decision to consider sending a large contingent of troops into Afghanistan, moving onto its management of the actual intervention and, finally, onto its decision to withdraw the troops and beyond. All of these lessons are meant for consideration by nations’ military-political leadership.
Lesson 1:
Before making final decisions on issues of fundamental importance, such as military intervention, determine what national interests are at stake, what options exist for advancing or defending those interests and what costs and benefits each of these options would generate, both direct and indirect; and do not let leaders’ personal ambitions impact the ultimate decision.
Lesson 2:
Ensure a sufficiently broad and comprehensive inter-agency process of reviewing potential decisions to use force, factoring in the views of all key stakeholders in general and those to be tasked with implementing the decisions in particular.
Lesson 3:
Examine aspects of a country’s history relevant to your planned undertaking.
Lesson 4:
Once the decision to send troops has been made, formulate the goals of the intervention and communicate them clearly to the agencies involved in implementation; also, shape your messaging to other key stakeholders likely to influence the outcome of the intervention.
Lesson 5:
If you do decide to go in, develop an exit plan in advance.
Lesson 6:
Once in, ensure effective inter-agency coordination and cooperation.
Lesson 7:
Rather than try to mold your local allies in your own image, empower them, encouraging self-reliance, and pay attention to indigenous traditions.
Lesson 8:
You cannot succeed in a military intervention unless the side on whose behalf you intervene is willing to fight for your joint cause.
Lesson 9:
Talk to moderates on the opposite side.
Lesson 10:
When leaving, leave…
Lesson 11:
…but before you leave, secure enforceable guarantees that POWs and MIAs are found and brought home, and give the returning soldiers proper welcome and care.
Lesson 12:
…also before you leave, secure firm and enforceable agreements that would not only meet your own minimum requirements for a negotiated settlement, but also those of your local allies, because the end of an intervention by itself cannot end hostilities.
Lesson 13:
Even after you leave, prevent mission creep.
Lesson 14:
Last but not least: Be willing to learn the lessons.
Only some of these lessons were inferred as the intervention unfolded, while most were drawn years after the withdrawal of the Soviet 40th Army—which made up the bulk of the so-called limited contingent of Soviet troops in Afghanistan, or OKSVA—on Feb. 15, 1989.
Of course, such hindsight could not have changed anything in the intervention.
We should also bear in mind that “where you stand depends on where you sit”: As some of the passages below demonstrate, some of the “lesson learners” tend to cast their own and their comrades-in-arms’ actions in a favorable light while criticizing the conduct of their peers from other agencies.
Despite the occasional bias, these lessons could still prove useful to policymakers faced with the stark dilemmas of a possible military intervention.
In particular, some of the entries at the end of the list could, perhaps, prove instructive for the U.S. leadership as it contemplates whether or how to end its own intervention in Afghanistan.
Finally, those in charge of applying these lessons should keep in mind historian Ernest May’s procedure for ensuring against amateurism in drawing historical analogies, as described by Graham Allison and Niall Ferguson in their Applied History Manifesto: “Put the analogy as the headline on a sheet of paper; draw a straight line down the middle of the page; write ‘similar’ at the top of one column and ‘different’ at the top of the other; and then set to work.
If you are unable to list at least three points of similarity and three of difference, then you should consult a historian.”
And here is yet another group of lessons...
The Lessons (in far greater detail…)
Lesson 1:
Before making final decisions on issues of fundamental importance, such as military intervention, determine what national interests are at stake, what options exist for advancing or defending those interests and what costs and benefits each of these options would generate, both direct and indirect; and do not let leaders’ personal ambitions impact the ultimate decision.
Winston Churchill once famously observed that the key to Soviet decision-making is “national interest.”
If Churchill was right, then anyone with access to transcripts of Politburo meetings from 1979 should expect to find some kind of discussion on the Soviet national interests at stake in Afghanistan, as well as opportunities for advancing these interests with an intervention.
In reality, the author’s review of transcripts of the Soviet leadership’s deliberations on Afghanistan revealed that while Politburo members did discuss some of the Soviet national interests that were at stake, they failed to take stock of potential, direct and indirect, costs and benefits that their country would encounter if they decided to advance those interests by means of a full-fledged military intervention in Afghanistan.
A failure to grasp that the costs of such an intervention would significantly outweigh the benefits led the Soviet leadership to make an erroneous decision on Dec. 12, 1979, in favor of sending troops en masse into Afghanistan. In addition to horrendous human costs on all sides of the conflict, that decision cost the Soviet Union’s stagnating economy dearly through a combination of such factors as Western sanctions and expenditures needed to sustain the intervention. Moreover, in the decade after the withdrawal of Soviet troops, Afghanistan turned into a hotbed of instability.
This did not only spill over to affect post-Soviet Russia’s Central Asian allies, but also gave a home base to al-Qaeda, which in turn supported the insurgency in Russia’s own North Caucasus. In the end, therefore, the intervention undermined rather than advanced such Soviet interests as having neutral or friendly neighbors and sustainable development of the Soviet economy.
The author’s review of Soviet deliberations on Afghanistan prior to Dec. 12, 1979, reveals a variety of justifications for intervention put forward by different members of the country’s leadership—including ones that concern Soviet national interests such as ensuring the survival of Moscow’s allies and having friendly neighbors. Soviet Defense Minister Dmitry Ustinov and some other Politburo members, for instance, pointed out the need to bolster the rule of the pro-Moscow People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA)—which had come to power in an April 1978 coup—and save it from being overthrown by opposition forces.
The coup, which the Soviets preferred to call the “April Revolution,” had resulted in the ouster of Afghan President Mohammed Daoud Khan and his eventual succession by PDPA General Secretary Nur Muhammad Taraki; by the fall of 1979, however, Taraki had been assassinated at the behest of his rival and party colleague Hafizullah Amin, who took over as PDPA leader and president of what became the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (DRA).
This power grab gave Politburo members new cause for concern: One of the arguments they considered in favor of intervention was the perceived need to prevent Amin from initiating a rapprochement with the West, which they saw as a possibility, according to a secret Central Committee memo signed by several Politburo members—including Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko, KGB chairman Yuri Andropov and Ustinov, the defense minister—as well as Boris Ponomaryov, chief of the Central Committee’s International Department.
In his 1995 book about the intervention, “The Tragedy and Valor of Afghanistan,” Gen. Alexander Lyakhovsky wrote that Andropov and Ustinov told a meeting of select Politburo members in Brezhnev’s study on Dec. 8, 1979, that they feared Amin’s interest in mending fences with Washington could eventually allow the U.S. to deploy medium-range nuclear-armed missiles in Afghanistan to target the Soviets’ Baikonur cosmodrome, among other facilities. (More generally, Lyakhovsky, who served in Afghanistan in 1987-1989, blamed the decision to intervene on what he saw as a strategic disinformation campaign pursued by the U.S. and its allies, among other things.)
The Soviet leadership also feared that, if allowed to establish a presence in Afghanistan, the U.S. would be able to collect telemetry during launches of newly designed Russian missiles, since most of the main testing ranges were located in southern parts of the Soviet Union, according to a 1999 article by Gen. Valentin Varennikov, who was not a Politburo member but was intimately involved in planning and carrying out the intervention as deputy chief of the Soviet General Staff.
Some of the post-factum analysis of the intervention also made references to the Soviet Union’s geopolitical interest in keeping Afghanistan anchored to the Cold War-era “socialist camp” of countries. For instance, Gen. Ivan Pavlovsky, who had commanded Soviet ground troops as deputy defense minister in 1967-1980, believed that several key factors played a role in the decision to send in troops, including the possible strengthening of American positions on the Eurasian continent, the deterioration of Soviet relations with China, China’s rapprochement with the U.S. and a dramatic increase in the influence of Islamic fundamentalism within Afghanistan. Varennikov wrote in his memoirs, entitled “The Unrepeatable,” that the Soviet leadership’s decision hinged on “the calculation that the presence of our troops in Afghanistan would cool the hot heads of Amin’s supporters, and even those of the opposition forces, and … would prevent possible encroachments by the Americans and stabilize the situation.”
General of the Army1 Makhmut Gareyev, the chief Soviet military advisor to the Afghan army after the withdrawal, wrote in a 1994 article called “Why and How We Went Into Afghanistan” that he saw the USSR’s “geopolitical interests” in general as the main driver of the decision to intervene. Among those interests he singled out the Soviet Union’s need to have loyal or at least neutral neighbors to ensure the security of the country’s frontier regions, particularly in the south.
It should be noted that in addition to the need to defend the aforementioned interests, various other justifications for the intervention were offered in the course of discussions by the Politburo.
Not all of them look plausible. For instance, one rationale cited during the Dec. 8 meeting of five Politburo members in Brezhnev’s study was the need to prevent Iraq from getting access to Afghanistan’s uranium deposits, which Baghdad could have then used to build nuclear weapons.
That concern was raised by Ustinov and Andropov, according to Lyakhovsky’s aforementioned book.
Another justification cited by the duo was the need to disrupt what they saw as U.S.-supported efforts by Turkey to build a new Ottoman empire that would incorporate the Soviet Union’s Central Asian republics, according to the book.
The top Soviet decision makers in the Central Committee’s Politburo did see some downsides to an intervention too, including the reversal of Soviet-U.S. détente and the inevitable damage to the USSR’s reputation in the world as a whole. Less than nine months before the intervention, when the Afghan government had asked Moscow for help against an uprising in Herat, Gromyko, the foreign minister, allegedly told fellow Politburo members that the Soviet army would be branded “an aggressor” if it were sent into Afghanistan and that it would have to “first and foremost fight the Afghan people,” according to a transcript of the March 18, 1979, deliberations by Politburo members cited in Lyakhovsky’s book. Gromyko warned that Brezhnev’s summits with American and French leaders would have to be cancelled.
According to the same source, Andropov agreed it would be wrong to send troops. “We can only prop up the [April 27, 1978] revolution in Afghanistan with our bayonets, but this is completely unacceptable for us” and “we cannot run such a risk,” Andropov said as almost 9,000 DRA soldiers mutinied against Taraki’s regime.
The Politburo meeting concluded with the consensus that troops should not be sent, but that the Soviet Union will expand military aid to Taraki’s regime.
However, the issues raised at this and other Politburo meetings represented just a fraction of the costs that the Soviet Union could incur. In the end, in its decision-making process, the Politburo neither took full stock of the exact interests at stake nor produced a comprehensive review of all the potential, direct and indirect, costs and benefits of sending troops into Afghanistan.
This flew in the face of warnings from some of the Soviet Union’s top military strategists—warnings that the Politburo ultimately ignored. One senior Soviet military officer said to have comprehensively assessed the costs of a campaign before it began was the commander of Soviet Ground Forces, Ivan Pavlovsky. Pavlovsky inspected the state of affairs in Afghanistan in August-November 1979 and concluded that Soviet troops should not be sent there.
In a 1999 article for the aforementioned Rodina journal Pavlovsky recalled citing seven reasons not to intervene militarily in a report he sent to Ustinov upon his return from the 1979 trip to Afghanistan.
These included: his perception that the April 27, 1978, socialist “revolution” did not enjoy significant popular support; the lack of a working class and mass belief in Islam; widespread possession of arms; porous, ill-guarded borders that would allow the U.S. and its allies to ship in arms; an inevitable popular backlash against such an intervention; and the resulting deterioration in relations with the U.S. and NATO.
Anatoly Chernyaev, who was a senior international affairs analyst at the Central Committee when the decision to intervene was made, was quick to point out that it could not have possibly generated a net benefit for the Soviet Union. “Have we really acted only for the sake of revolutionary philanthropy? The argument that we had to do so to secure the border is ridiculous,” he wrote on Dec. 30, 1979, three days after Soviet commandos stormed Amin’s residence outside Kabul in an operation code-named Storm-333 to kill him and bring Babrak Karmal to power, as Moscow’s troops poured across the Soviet-Afghan border. In Chernyaev’s view, the Soviet Union could have reaped “political and prestige dividends” if only it had chosen to prop up socialist factions in Afghanistan without a large-scale military intervention. Beyond seeing no benefits from the intervention, Chernyaev—who went on to become assistant for international affairs to Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet general secretary who ended the intervention—saw serious costs too.
In a diary entry dated Nov. 1, 1980, he lamented that the intervention cost “several million [in cash] every day, and … the blood of our soldiers also every day.” The head of the Moscow-based Institute of the Economy of the Global Socialist System, Oleg Bogomolov, made similar points in a memo sent to the Central Committee at about the same time as Chernyaev recorded his thoughts.
“With the sending of troops to Afghanistan our policy … has crossed the permissible boundaries of confrontation in the third world,” Bogomolov wrote in the 1980 memo. “The benefits of this action turned out to be insignificant in comparison with the damage that was inflicted on our interests.” The costs, as seen by the authors, included: the emergence of a hotbed of instability on the “southern flank of the USSR”; generating dissent among the Soviet Union’s allies regarding the intervention; burying any prospects for normalizing Soviet-Chinese relations; facilitating consolidation within the anti-Soviet coalition of states that “girded the USSR from West to East”; stalling Soviet-U.S. detente; and strengthening the West’s technological and economic sanctions against Moscow (something Russian President Vladimir Putin may find all too familiar in the wake of his intervention in Ukraine).
The author of the 1980 memo and other informed sources have also pointed out the “economic burden” the invasion placed on the Soviet economy—and it was no small burden, indeed. As of the late 1970s, Soviet aid accounted for half of all foreign aid to the DRA, according to Vladimir Toporkov, a KGB officer who advised Afghanistan’s security establishment in the 1980s and went on to become a general in post-Soviet Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB).
By his calculations, the overall costs, including both aid and funding for Soviet military operations in Afghanistan, totaled the equivalent of $50 billion in 1979-1989.
That sum by itself was “neither catastrophic nor painful” for the Soviet economy, according to Toporkov.2 However, if one were to count not only direct but also indirect costs, such as Western sanctions imposed on the USSR over its Afghanistan campaign, these were a significant destabilizing factor, for the Soviet Union, according to Toporkov’s study, “The Influence of the Afghan Factor on Economic Processes in the Soviet Union in 1989-1992,” published by the Russian Defense Ministry’s Military-Historical Journal in 2004.
Like Toporkov, generals Gareyev and Lyakhovsky also waited for the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan to end before publicly weighing its pros and cons, with both of them concluding that its costs had outweighed the benefits.
Gareyev, who retired shortly after his time as chief Soviet military advisor to the DRA army, wrote in his 1994 article that the primary cost of the campaign was that “the Soviet Union found itself in international isolation,” its relations with the U.S., NATO and China deteriorating.
He also wrote in a 1996 book called “My Last War” that “the protracted war in Afghanistan and the need for continued support of the regime in Kabul generated huge financial and material costs, undermining the already limping economy” of the USSR and sapping its military strength. “The decision of the Soviet leadership to stage an armed intervention into Afghan affairs ended up generating more minuses than pluses,” he wrote in the 1994 article, published in the Russian Defense Ministry’s Oriyentir journal.
Lyakhovsky, for his part, believed that one of the costs vastly underestimated by the Soviet leadership was how strong local resistance to the intervention would be: “Scant regard toward the Afghans played an important role too. Ustinov, for example, thought that some of the rebels would instantly lay down arms, while the rest would flee as soon as the Soviet troops appeared in Afghanistan,” he wrote in a 1999 Rodina article called “How the Decision to Send Troops to Afghanistan Was Made.”
“In practice, however, underestimating the adversary cost the USSR dearly. The same thing happened in Chechnya in 1994,” Lyakhovsky wrote, referring to Russia’s first war with separatist Chechnya.
In addition to failing to fully anticipate the costs and benefits that the Soviet Union would encounter if it were to try advancing its interests in Afghanistan by means of military intervention, some Soviet leaders let their personal ambitions influence the fateful decisions they made on their country’s behalf. For instance, Varennikov wrote of “our leaders’ ambitions” in his 1999 article, headlined “Those on Top Wanted Glory, the Military Opposed the War.”
When listing reasons for the intervention, he referred specifically to Ustinov’s personal ambitions: “It was difficult to call Dmitry Fyodorovich an outstanding political leader. However, at one point I sensed how he began to want to try on the laurels of a strategist and a victor.” While Ustinov’s personal feelings may indeed have been a contributing factor, they were not as decisive as Brezhnev’s. In his diary Chernyaev bluntly blamed the intervention on Brezhnev’s desire to take revenge on Amin. Chernyaev wrote in his dairy on Feb. 5, 1980, that some of Brezhnev’s confidants must have managed to “play on” the Soviet leader’s “demential indignation” over Amin’s decision to have Taraki ousted and then killed. That Brezhnev was agitated by Taraki’s murder is also confirmed by his personal physician, Yevgeny Chazov. “In spite of the decline of his ability for critical perception, he took that event much to heart,” Chazov recalled in his book, “Health and Power: Memoirs of a Kremlin Doctor.” According to him, Brezhnev was most infuriated with the way Amin undermined the Soviet leader’s personal credibility by killing Taraki whom Brezhnev had hosted and publicly promised support to a month earlier. “What will they say in other countries? How can one trust Brezhnev’s word if his assurances of support and protection remain just words,” Chazov quoted Brezhnev as saying. Gareyev, in his post-factum analysis, also wrote that Taraki’s murder on Oct. 9, 1979, had “pushed Brezhnev toward that step” of sending in troops.
After the killing “there was no longer any carefully considered analysis of the situation” by Soviet decision makers and “much was being done in haste,” according to Gareyev’s 1994 article. Lyakhovsky, in his 1999 article in the Russian government’s Rodina journal, also said that Brezhnev’s view on military intervention in Afghanistan changed after Taraki’s murder.
Lesson 2:
Ensure a sufficiently broad and comprehensive inter-agency process of reviewing potential decisions to use force, factoring in the views of all key stakeholders in general and those to be tasked with implementing the decisions in particular.
One reason the Soviet leadership erred in its decision to send a military contingent to Afghanistan was that the decision-making circle was very narrow. Had the political leaders included the country’s top military strategists, the decision could have been the opposite. According to one authoritative account by then First Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Kornienko, “a narrow group” that consisted of only five of more than a dozen Politburo members at the time “made the final political decision” to send troops. Those were Brezhnev, Andropov, Ustinov, Gromyko and Mikhail Suslov. Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin, also a Politburo member, was absent from the meeting, according to Kornienko’s recollection of the events, which he published as part of his memoirs, “Cold War: Testimony of a Participant.”3
According to Kornienko’s account, the hand-written, two-paragraph resolution passed by this small group on Dec. 12, 1979, was “formalized retroactively” with signatures from the remaining Politburo members. “Thus, not even all the members of the Politburo made the fateful decision,” according to Kornienko, whose recollection is corroborated in Lyakhovsky’s book.
Notably, even though the decision was adopted only by a handful of Politburo members, its signatories framed it as a resolution of the entire Central Committee, even though most of its members had not been consulted before it was made; other high-level officials were likewise kept out of the loop.
Chernyaev was equally dismayed by the narrowness of the decision-making: “I think that in the history of Russia, even under Stalin, there has not yet been such a period when such important actions were undertaken without a hint of the slightest coordination with anyone, [without any] advice, discussion, careful consideration, even if only in a very narrow circle,” he wrote in his diary in December 1979. It is notable that despite their key positions, both Chernyaev and other senior officials in the Central Committee staff were kept in the dark not only about the exact reasons for the decision to send in troops but also about who actually initiated that decision. It was only in 1985 that one of Chernyaev’s colleagues told him Kornienko had claimed in a casual chat that it was, in Kornienko’s view, his boss, Foreign Minister Gromyko, who had convinced Brezhnev to send in troops.
In addition to being too narrow, the circle of decision makers also suffered from a lack of reliable information.
The fact “that the information was distorted did not allow the country’s top leadership to understand the processes taking place in Afghanistan and prevent fatal mistakes,” Gareyev wrote in his book.
As Col. Nikolai Vasilyev, a military historian, explained in his own 2014 article on the lessons of the Soviet military intervention: “Many leaders, including members of the Politburo, adapted themselves to the opinion of L. I. Brezhnev. The intelligence and other agencies were required to confirm the ‘sagacity of the leader,’ and the information and recommendations of analysts and experts that did not fit into the pre-planned framework were thrown away.” The quality of information fed to the Politburo’s top brass did not improve even after Soviet troops were deployed and learning about the situation in Afghanistan first-hand. “Most likely, the General [Secretary] doesn’t even know what is happening around us.
Briefings from Afghanistan are prepped for him so that they’re full of ‘complete normalization.’ As for information from the West, it’s probably ‘at the level of Pravda’ [the Central Committee newspaper], since he’s long been kept in ‘spare-him mode.’ So he’s not even aware of what he’s done,” Chernyaev wrote in his dairy on Feb. 9, 1980. As important, Chernyaev believes the ageing Brezhnev could not have drawn sound conclusions from the information even if it had not been distorted to please him because of the extent to which his mental capabilities had deteriorated. In a Sept. 29, 1982, diary entry Chernyaev describes how Brezhnev, in Baku to laud the performance of Soviet Azerbaijan, had become so senile by the third year of the Soviet campaign that, 10 minutes into a televised speech, he did not realize he was reading the wrong text even after it explicitly referred to “Afghanistan” instead of “Azerbaijan.”
Even when accurate information on Afghanistan did make it to the top decision makers, they often rejected it as they suffered from cognitive bias, dismissing dissenting views even when they were presented by key stakeholders who would be tasked with executing the decisions.
Top Soviet military commanders felt particularly slighted by their exclusion from the decision-making process. As Vasilyev, the military historian, lamented in his article, published by the Defense Ministry’s Military-Historical Journal, “The Special Commission of the Politburo for Afghanistan, headed by Foreign Minister A. A. Gromyko, in effect replaced the Council of Defense of the USSR and, in part, its working body, the General Staff.
… Among them [the commission members] there were no professionals of military strategy.” Chief of the Soviet General Staff Nikolai Ogarkov, his first deputy Sergei Akhromeyev and Varennikov, a deputy of Ogarkov’s, had been asked to present their thoughts about sending troops sometime before the pared-down Politburo meeting Dec. 12. The trio argued that a Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan would be “impossible and inconceivable, first and foremost from the political standpoint,” according to Chernyaev’s diary. Rather than heed their advice, Ustinov, the Soviet defense minister and a Politburo member, dismissed their arguments, telling them “not to discuss [orders]” and to present a detailed plan of the operation.
Ogarkov, it should be noted, objected to the intervention on more than one occasion. When summoned to the Politburo on Dec. 8, 1979, Ogarkov called on its members to reject Gromyko and Andropov’s arguments in favor of reversing the Soviet leadership’s previous position, which had been to refrain from sending troops. He repeated his calls again the following day in Brezhnev’s presence, warning that “we will turn all of eastern Islamism against ourselves and lose politically across the world,” only to be shut down by Andropov: “You were invited not to have your opinion heard, but to write down the Politburo’s directives and organize their implementation.”
That conflict, according to Varennikov, led to a dramatic deterioration in Ogarkov’s relations with Andropov; Ogarkov lost his post after Andropov succeeded Brezhnev as general secretary. One senior Soviet commander who lost his post even before the campaign had begun, possibly over his opposition to the intervention, was the aforementioned commander of Soviet Ground Forces, Pavlovsky. As described above, after his travels in Afghanistan in summer-fall of 1979, Pavlovsky claims he pleaded with the Soviet military-political leadership not to send a contingent, but his advice was not heeded; shortly afterwards he was relieved from his post.
In his 1994 article Gareyev criticized the Soviet political leadership for ignoring Ogarkov’s views and telling him to stick to military planning. “As life has repeatedly proved, political decisions prove viable and grounded only when they take into account all aspects, including foreign policy, economic, ideological and military-strategic considerations,” he wrote, adding: “The General Staff cannot determine policies, but they must actively participate in crafting military aspects of this policy and ignoring these aspects can lead to major political failures.”
Interestingly, while telling the General Staff to stick to military planning, the Politburo would not even heed the staff’s advice on such a key element of that planning as the personnel strength of the intervening force. Ogarkov had responded to the political leadership’s order to develop an intervention plan with a proposal for deploying 30-35 divisions, but his request was shot down, according to Gareyev’s recollections of the events, which he shared with University of Kansas history professor Jacob Kipp in 1996 and also put on paper for his other book on the subject, entitled “Afghan Suffering.”4 However, the Politburo authorized only 75,000-80,000 servicemen, according to Lyakhovsky’s book (at the time, a typical Soviet infantry division had 13,000 servicemen).5
Lesson 3:
Examine aspects of a country’s history relevant to your planned undertaking.
There’s a joke that says Americans learn about the history of other countries by invading them. The Soviets, you could say, merely recalled what they had already learned about Afghanistan’s history by invading it. Had the Soviet leadership factored in the way that Afghan tribes’ intense and enduring dislike for outside powers and their local clients had foiled previous empires’ attempts to anchor the country, that may have influenced Moscow’s final analysis about sending in troops and helped to save them from a costly mistake.
None of the transcripts of Politburo discussions about intervening in Afghanistan contains any significant discussion of Afghan history. Analyzing how Afghans had fought off various past encroachments, by the British Empire among others, would have perhaps made Soviet leaders more averse to using force to accomplish anything there. The absence of such discussions is especially ironic given that one of Soviet ideology’s most revered figures warned how “unruly” Afghans could be: None other than Friedrich Engels observed between the first and second of the three Anglo-Afghan wars that Afghans’ “indomitable hatred of rule, and their love of individual independence, … prevents their becoming a powerful nation; but this very irregularity and uncertainty of action makes them dangerous neighbors … [for whom] war is an excitement.” The Politburo members could have also examined how Joseph Stalin staged an abortive military intervention in Afghanistan in an effort to prop up Amanulla Khan, the sovereign from 1919 to 1929 who signed the 1921 Soviet-Afghan Friendship Treaty, but then had to abdicate his throne in a revolt. In 1929 Stalin sent 1,000 Red Army soldiers into Afghanistan disguised as Afghan soldiers to operate jointly with some of Khan’s loyalists, according to Lyakhovsky’s book and a 1999 article in Rodina by Pavel Aptekar. The joint Soviet-Afghan unit took Mazar-i-Sharif in April 1929, but Stalin then had to recall his troops after learning that Khan had fled to India.
Some Soviet officers came to the same conclusions as Engels, but only after being sent to Afghanistan to take part in the 1979-1989 intervention. “It was impossible to defeat those Afghan bearded men and their sons, with whom we then had to fight. They were ready to fight their whole lives, and they had nothing to lose from it because they had nothing to their name, just like now. This is a proud, freedom-loving people. They have nothing but their faith and the desire to live the way they want and consider to be right,” KGB officer Vladimir Garkavy, who completed multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan in 1979-1984, wrote in his book. Gromov also cited history in his 1999 Rodina article on Afghanistan. “Any interference from the outside is deemed to fail in a country where tribes have struggled against each other for centuries and where nationalism is extremely developed,” he wrote in his book, which contains more useful insights on the intervention than a New York Times op-ed he co-wrote with Dmitry Rogozin; entitled “Russian Advice on Afghanistan,” that January 2010 piece is essentially a wish list Moscow had at the time for U.S. conduct in Afghanistan.
Lesson 4:
Once the decision to send troops has been made, formulate the goals of the intervention and communicate them clearly to the agencies involved in implementation; also, shape your messaging to other key stakeholders likely to influence the outcome of the intervention.
The Soviet leadership’s marching orders for its military contingent, OKSVA, were anything but clear—with the exception of the secret order to immediately replace Amin with Karmal. The fact that the Soviet leadership failed to define what would constitute the ultimate long-term success once the initial goal of regime change had been achieved made it difficult for both that leadership and commanders on the ground to understand, once Amin was removed, whether the Soviet intervention was succeeding, failing or stagnating, other than by measuring how much territory the DRA regime controlled at any time. In the absence of a well-defined mission, Soviet commanders oscillated between merely providing support to DRA forces and actually leading combat engagements, while some of the military advisors pressed for a troop surge that could expand the mission to sealing Afghanistan’s borders. In addition to failing to clearly communicate their goals to their own troops, Soviet leaders also failed to communicate their goals in Afghanistan to the international community as a whole, making it easier for the U.S. to win support in its efforts to isolate and punish the USSR over the intervention.
The lack of a clear long-term mission was evident in the key documents kicking off the Soviet intervention, both on the political and the military side. The two-paragraph Politburo resolution initiating the troop deployment, entitled “Concerning the Situation in ‘A,’” stated neither the reasons for the campaign nor its goals. The military directive to execute the Politburo’s decision, issued jointly by the Defense Ministry and the General Staff of the Soviet Armed Force on Dec. 24, 1979, gave only a vague idea of why troops were being sent into Afghanistan, proclaiming it was to “give international aid to the friendly Afghan people and also to create favorable conditions to interdict possible anti-Afghan actions from neighboring countries.” (Defense Ministry newspapers such as Red Star didn’t provide “any sensible explanation” either, according to Gareyev’s 1994 article.) In his book, Gareyev recalled that Directive 312/12/001, signed by Ustinov and Ogarkov, stated that Soviet troops were being sent into Afghanistan for “fulfillment of international duty.” “What that duty constituted was to be decided by each commander and soldier themselves,” Gareyev wrote. According to one website maintained by Soviet veterans of the Afghan war, the directive did not provide for Soviet troops’ participation in combat. That created ambiguity in its interpretation, even though the 40th Army did get involved in fighting almost immediately. For instance, Marshal Sergei Sokolov, the deputy defense minister in charge of the ministry’s Operational Group in Afghanistan in 1980, told Soviet military advisors there in January of that year that “special attention should be paid to the inadmissibility of Soviet troops’ involvement in the armed struggle against the rebels; their [the troops’] functions are completely different.” Several days later, however, the same commander, under pressure from Afghan allies, sanctioned the use of “one or two units of Soviet troops” to oust the mujahedeen from an artillery depot, according to Gareyev’s 1994 article. In addition, while Sokolov’s boss, Ustinov, also under pressure from the Afghan leadership, “demanded that Soviet troops engage in active combat operations,” General Staff chief Ogarkov, opposed to the intervention from the outset, tried to restrain the troops’ involvement in large-scale military operations, according to Gareyev. Gromov, commander of the 40th Army, which made up the bulk of OKSVA, described in his book how he prioritized minimizing Soviet casualties and criticized Kabul for constantly pleading with Moscow to have his troops step up operations while trying to find ways to prevent using its own troops. Gareyev—who commanded no units in Afghanistan and, therefore, bore no personal responsibility for casualties—appears to have criticized what he saw as the 40th Army commanders’ passiveness, writing in his book that some of their most important combat operations “were undertaken only at the request of the Afghan leadership and under pressure from the Soviet leadership.”
(In the end, a decision to limit involvement in combat operations appears to have prevailed among the Soviet top brass: At some point as many as 70 percent of the 40th Army’s forces were tasked with ensuring transportation of humanitarian supplies and 60 percent of its activities were geared toward peacekeeping and nation-building, such as helping to build infrastructure and training the DRA army, according to Gromov’s estimates.)
The Soviet military’s top brass also appears not to have spelled out rules of engagement when sending in the troops. “The inadmissibility of the use of weapons against the civilian population is stipulated by international legal norms, but what about the ‘civilian’ armed with an automatic rifle or a grenade launcher? Wait till he shoots?” asked Gareyev in his book. He also recalled: “As strange as it may sound, from the very beginning of the introduction of troops and until the end of their stay in Afghanistan there was no clear line on whether our troops in this country should fight or not.”
As a result, some Soviet commanders displayed “covert resistance to attempts to force the troops to fight,” Gareyev wrote. The Soviet political leadership’s lack of a “clear goal” and a “definite plan of action” had a direct impact on military operations. In fact, in Gareyev’s view, the Soviet leadership continued to have neither “a definite political, strategic plan nor an integral concept of the use of troops in Afghanistan from the very beginning and in essence until the end” of the campaign.
Lyakhovsky concurred in his book that Soviet leaders had failed to spell out to the troops what they would be doing in Afghanistan, lamenting in his book that “the political leadership of the USSR formulated the strategic goals of the Soviet military presence in Afghanistan in a vague and unclear way,” except, again, for the goal of replacing Amin with Karmal, which was not made public. According to Gromov, however, the 40th Army did at least have clear initial goals. The first was to keep the “April Revolution from dying,” he wrote in reference to the April 1979 coup d’état that had brought the Moscow-friendly PDPA to power. The second goal was to prevent external aggression. The 40th Army “handled that [first] task brilliantly,” but then the PDPA’s leadership managed “craftily to drag the 40th Army into a large-scale guerilla war,” Gromov wrote.
While criticizing the Soviet political leadership for failing to formulate and communicate clear goals for the campaign in Afghanistan, Gareyev and other officers involved in the campaign had their own ideas on what these goals should be. In Gareyev’s view, which he shared with Ogarkov in December 1979, the Soviet military contingent should have been tasked with sealing Afghanistan’s borders and establishing control over all major settlements, communications and other infrastructure, arguing that the Soviet command should send 40 rather than four divisions to accomplish these goals.
Lev Rokhlin, who commanded infantry regiments in Afghanistan and then fought in Chechnya, concurred with Gareyev’s view that the Afghan borders had to be sealed, but also thought OKSVA should have refrained from siding with any of the warring parties in the country, according to a 1999 article of his in Rodina, “I Was Not Afraid to Fight.” It should also be noted that the Soviet command did task 50,000 soldiers with securing Afghanistan’s borders as of 1986, according to Akhromeyev, Ogarkov’s first deputy at the General Staff, but that number was insufficient to stop the inflow of arms and rebels. In general, it is doubtful that such a goal would have been achievable. If the experience of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and Russia’s own experience in Chechnya during the two campaigns there are any guide, a complete sealing of borders would have proved problematic, at best.
That’s why, perhaps, Vladimir Kryuchkov, who served as deputy chairman of the KGB during most of the intervention before heading up the agency in 1988, believed the mission should have been limited to a special operation to replace Amin with Karmal. “I remain convinced that a short special operation” to effect regime change “would have been the best outcome,” Kryuchkov was quoted as saying in a 1999 issue of Rodina.
In addition to failing to clearly communicate their goals to their own troops, Soviet leaders also failed in their communications with allies, foes and the international community on the issue. For instance, while official Soviet statements cited the Soviet-Afghan Friendship treaties of 1921 and 1978 as giving legal grounds for the intervention, portrayed by the Soviet propaganda machine as “international aid to the friendly Afghan people,” the Politburo decision makers did not even bother to have their Dec. 12, 1979, resolution approved by the Soviet parliament, though such a move may have somewhat increased the “official” credibility of their decision in the eyes of their allies. Lyakhovsky noted this problem in his 2005 book: “The then leadership of the CPSU [Communist Party of the Soviet Union] did not consider it necessary to submit this question for discussion by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. It was simply announced as ‘international assistance’—end of story.”
Lyakhovsky’s boss, Varennikov, thought it was wrong not to reach out to the international community on the decision to send troops into Afghanistan. “What was the main mistake that our leadership made after making a decision to deploy troops? That we did not announce it.
We should have preempted the Americans and others by announcing it to the whole world: The leadership of Afghanistan repeatedly asked us for military assistance,” Vasilyev quotes Varennikov as saying. Moreover, the propaganda dimension of the Soviets’ efforts vis-à-vis the Afghan public did not become a priority until the sixth year of the campaign. It was in 1985 that the Soviet military-political leadership made the decision to “organize special propaganda in relation to the population and opposition of Afghanistan” and that was done in response to an increase in Western “information influence” there, according to a 2003 article on the “informational and psychological struggle” in Afghanistan by Col. Yuri Serooky in the Russian General Staff journal Military Thought.
To be fair, it is unclear whether such propaganda could have made much of a difference in the battle for Afghan hearts and minds even if launched on Day 1 of the intervention. After all, it would have been very difficult to make Afghans forget whose troops had poured into the president’s palace and killed Amin in the Storm-333 operation—no matter that Afghan leaders, including both Taraki and Amin himself, had asked the Soviets some 20 times to send in troops, according to Gareyev’s 1994 article and Lyakhovsky’s 1999 article.
Lesson 5:
If you do decide to go in, develop an exit plan in advance.
It should also be noted that the Soviet military had no exit plan when going in. The first draft of such a plan was developed only in 1980, according to Gareyev’s book, which cites Yuri Drozdov, the former chief of the KGB’s so-called “Illegals Program.” According to Varennikov’s 1999 article, however, it was not until 1983 that Soviet commanders submitted a proposal for withdrawing troops for consideration by the country’s political leadership. Of course, the development of an exit plan in advance could not have influenced the outcome of the intervention. In the end, Gromov, the last commander of the 40th Army, had many months to plan the withdrawal and executed it both leaving months’ worth of supplies for the remaining DRA forces and minimizing losses among OKSVA personnel during the withdrawal itself. However, had the intervention gone wrong in the early stages of the campaign (e.g., if Afghan rebels had inflicted massive losses on the advancing troops or a significant unexpected event had emerged, such as a major military conflict elsewhere), then a hasty, unplanned withdrawal could have cost a lot of lives.
Also, while the military component of the exit was well planned and executed, the diplomatic component fell short. As discussed further down, the Soviets failed to secure either assurances for the return of their own POWs and MIAs or the effective enforcement of other signatories’ obligations on ending aid to the rebels. The latter accelerated the fall of the PDPA regime, bringing instability to the disintegrating Soviet empire’s southern frontiers.
Lesson 6:
Once in, ensure effective inter-agency coordination and cooperation.
Both the preparation and the execution of the Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan revealed that inter-agency coordination and cooperation was inadequate. That by itself could not have decided the outcome of the campaign, but inter-agency rivalry did limit the OKSVA command’s situational awareness, causing a range of problems, including the diminished effectiveness of combat planning and operations.
Initial coordination was so ineffective that key figures were kept in the dark about their colleagues’ plans even within a single agency. For instance, the chief Soviet military advisor in Afghanistan, Gen. Saltan Magomedov, had no idea that commandoes of the General Staff’s Main Intelligence Directorate would storm Amin’s palace, in cooperation with KGB commandos and other forces, to replace him with Karmal. When Ustinov called this star-studded advisor in December 1979 sometime prior to the attack and asked to be briefed on “readiness for Operation Storm-333,” Magomedov did not know what his superior was talking about, according to Gareyev’s book. When Magomedov admitted this, Ustinov suggested he contact the KGB representative in Kabul. When Magomedov did that, he got “hints, not … the necessary information,” Gareyev wrote.
Moreover, according to Gareyev’s 1994 article, Soviet military advisors in Afghanistan learned that Soviet troops had entered the country from foreign radio broadcasts.
Cooperation across agencies was equally if not more problematic. Both Gromov and Gareyev listed multiple instances when Defense Ministry and KGB personnel would fail to coordinate their actions in Afghanistan. Being army generals, both blamed the lack of cooperation on the KGB, particularly when it came to interactions with the General Staff’s Main Intelligence Directorate, or GRU. KGB agents in Afghanistan would sometimes refuse to share intelligence they had collected directly with the Soviet armed forces’ commanders there, sending it to superiors at KGB headquarters in Moscow instead. “As a result, we [40th Army Command] would learn about actions supposedly planned by the mujahedeen from Moscow,” Gromov wrote.
“Such situations arose with depressing consistency and created certain tensions between military intelligence [GRU] officers and their colleagues from the State Security Committee [KGB],” Gromov wrote.
It was only in 1985, six years after the campaign began, that inter-agency intelligence coordination meetings began to take place at 40th Army headquarters so that representatives of the GRU, KGB, Interior Ministry and Foreign Ministry could jointly examine and analyze intelligence, according to Gromov.
Lesson 7:
Rather than try to mold your local allies in your own image, empower them, encouraging self-reliance, and pay attention to indigenous traditions.
As stated above, the Soviet Union spent the equivalent of billions of dollars arming and training DRA forces, including Defense Ministry, Interior Ministry and security troops.
The results proved to be far from either lasting or sufficient, however. DRA troops proved unable either to hold on to territorial gains made by the Soviet 40th Army or to withstand rebel offensives after Moscow withdrew the army and then discontinued aid.
The implosion of the DRA forces—which proved to be no match for the rebels in skills, tactics or morale—brought instability to the southern frontiers of the Soviet empire.
One of the senior Soviet officials to criticize the quality of DRA forces’ training by their Soviet advisors was Leonid Shebarshin, then a general in the KGB’s foreign intelligence branch.
While some Soviet military commanders sought to portray their efforts to train the Afghans as adequate, blaming poor results on the Afghans’ ineptitude, Shebarshin offered searing criticism of the trainers themselves in his memoirs. “What was the source of the [Soviet commanders’] distrust of the [Afghan] ally? How did it happen that two thousand advisers, including colonels and generals, failed to create a single fully combat-capable and reliable unit in the Afghan army?
How did it happen that the tactics of the Afghan army’s actions are not based on modern realities but on the hopelessly outdated experience of war in the open spaces of Russia?” wrote Shebarshin, who spent more than a decade in the region, conducting more than 20 trips to Afghanistan and eventually becoming chief of KGB operations in the Middle East.
In Shebarshin’s view, one reason the training of Afghan troops proved to be ineffective was that the Soviet commanders never learned how to delegate powers to their trainees: “We did teach something to Afghans, no doubt.
But mainly we ordered them around and commanded them, ‘stitching them on’ to our operations, imposing our decisions, while loudly shouting about the weak fighting capacity of the ally.”
Gareyev agreed with Shebarshin’s assessment on the lack of Soviet commanders’ trust in their Afghan allies, but blamed it in his book on KGB operatives.
Whether it was the lack of trust that adversely affected soldiers’ conduct, or the other way around, is unclear. What is clear, however, from all the Soviet commanders whose writings and statements were reviewed for this article, is that this conduct was subpar.
Rather than try to press their Afghan allies into some Marxist-Leninist mold, the Soviets should have encouraged the PDPA leadership to revert to indigenous traditions of power sharing to ensure national reconciliation and subsequent self-reliance. As Gromov wrote in his book, “A puppet-string mentality grew so strong among Afghans that they could no longer act independently, without the help of the Soviets.”
Chernyaev was even starker in his assessment of the Afghan leadership’s overdependence on the Soviets for making crucial decisions: “Karmalism is the dogmatism of Marxism-Leninism plus parasitism in relation to the USSR,” he wrote on Aug. 28, 1987, in his diary.
As Gareyev wrote: “In the early 1980s, in relation to Afghanistan, the most realistic thing was [for Soviet-policymakers] to avoid striving for the creation of a similar, obedient and unconditionally socialist state, but to support more moderate forces that enjoyed the support of the majority of the population and to push for reconciliation of the parties from the very beginning.” Gromov struck a similar note. “It is impossible to make country like Afghanistan, with its completely different way of life, with different religion, low level of development, a country that lives in its fourteenth century according to its calendar, similar to the Soviet Union. It would be a real absurdity,” Gromov wrote.
Lesson 8:
You cannot succeed in a military intervention unless the side on whose behalf you intervene is willing to fight for your joint cause.
No amount of training and empowering your local allies will help an intervention succeed unless those allies are actually willing to fight for your joint cause. The Soviets intervened to bring Karmal’s PDPA faction to power, going as far as assassinating a president to make way for their protégé. But the PDPA lacked a sufficient number of loyalists willing to fight for that cause, and many of the tens of thousands of men conscripted into the Moscow-aligned Afghan forces preferred to either avoid battle or outright desert when given orders to fight opposition forces.
Gromov vented repeatedly in his book about Afghan civil and military authorities’ failure to hold on to territorial gains made by Soviet forces, implying that differing priorities played a part. “The local Afghan leadership, despite its pro-Soviet sentiment, was not interested in having us conduct combat operations with maximum efficiency. Only a few of them [Afghan officials] tried to consolidate their power and govern in the provinces that we had ‘cleared.’ Obviously, they understood that sooner or later the war would end and there would be no one to face the music but them,” Gromov wrote of his first tour of duty, which ended in 1982 with him commanding an infantry division. His second tour of duty, which he began in 1985 as the General Staff’s representative in Afghanistan, was not marked by significant changes. Gromov called the situation he returned to that year “a dead end”: “One and a half months after our battalions returned to [their] military camps, we were again forced to conduct operations” in the same areas, he wrote in his book. “Our experience has shown that the results we achieved during our combat operations are not then utilized by the Afghans.
About one and a half to two months after completion of an operation everything would go back to square one: Mujahedeen would again take the districts from which we had knocked them out; they would restore their old bases with weapons and ammunition, coming very close to our sites again and resume shelling and attacks.
The question is: What did we fight for so long, sacrificing our guys in the mountains? It was necessary to stop,” Gromov wrote in 1985. Akhromeyev, first deputy chief of the General Staff, lamented the same problem at around the same time: “There is not a single piece of land left in this country that a Soviet soldier has not taken, yet most of the territory is in the hands of the rebels,” he told a Politburo meeting chaired by Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, on Nov. 13, 1986. “We control Kabul and the provincial centers, but we cannot establish authority in the conquered territory. We lost the fight for the Afghan people,” Akhromeyev said. Indeed, as of 1986, only 8,000 of some 31,000-35,000 villages were under Afghan government control, according to estimates by Mohammad Najibullah, who succeeded Karmal as PDPA head in May 1986, which he shared with Soviet diplomat Yuly Vorontsov in October of that year, according to Gromov’s book. As of 1989, the authorities’ controlled only 18 percent of the country’s territory, according to Gromov.
Gromov confirmed his impressions of Afghan soldiers’ and administrators’ conduct during his third and final tour of duty in 1987-1989 when he was commanding the 40th Army. “A time will soon come when revolutionary leaders will be left alone with their problems. They will be left one on one with the opposition. Only in this way can I explain the numerous instances of treason and betrayal by the Afghan military, which we encountered wherever we went,” he wrote in his 1994 book “Limited Contingent.”
Some of the officers from Afghanistan’s Ministry of State Security were no more enthusiastic about standing up to the mujahedeen than their Soviet Defense Ministry counterparts or civilian administrators, according to Gromov.
In his book he described how Soviet forces would “mop up” areas, detaining suspected mujahedeen and passing them on to the Afghans, only to encounter the same suspects again during the next mopping-up operation three or four months later. It was most likely that Afghan security agents would simply let these suspects go without investigating them or prosecuting them in court, Gromov surmised.
Not only were Afghan authorities and troops far from committed to the Soviet cause, they sometimes actively sabotaged it. Gromov complained that opposition field commanders like Ahmad Shah Massoud had “broad networks of informants in the Afghan army and government,” making it difficult to keep combat plans secret. Moreover, Afghan soldiers kept deserting to the opposition forces, taking their arms with them, including even howitzers and heavy armored vehicles. Equipment transfers by government troops “constituted a formidable source of arms and ammunition for the rebels,” Gromov wrote. Thousands would desert from the Afghan ministries of defense, security and internal affairs. According to one Russian account, a 1993 memoir called “Pursuing the Lion of Panjshir,” the number of deserters totaled 34,000 in 1983 alone. Even some DRA Air Force pilots would desert, reportedly flying their Soviet warplanes and helicopters to Pakistan, while some of those who stayed on would deliberately drop their bombs away from the designated targets, according to Gromov, who claims to have “documented a multiplicity of such instances.” He also wrote that some of the DRA servicemen tasked with observing enemy positions and providing targeting data would supply coordinates of locations where their personal enemies lived rather than mujahedeen.
Desertion from DRA forces became particularly widespread in the late 1980s as it became clear that OKSVA would be leaving. Of the 370 Afghan tank crewmembers trained in the city of Termez in Soviet Uzbekistan in 1989 and used to form a new tank brigade, only 127 made it to Kabul, according to Gareyev; the rest deserted, with several trainees fleeing during every night-time stopover en route.
Even when faced with an existential threat to the regime, some DRA commanders could not stop theft of military stocks or prevent desertions among their soldiers. When departing Soviet troops left three months’ worth of supplies for the DRA army, including almost 1,000 armored vehicles, 3,000 other vehicles and 14,400 assault rifles, many of these supplies did not reach the designated recipient because they were either stolen and sold to insurgents or seized by insurgents by force, according to Gareyev.
Gromov described how entire military camps that his withdrawing army had outfitted with everything from security perimeters to slippers next to beds would be looted by corrupt DRA commanders and their subordinates within days of being handed over and the goods then sold in local private shops.
Lesson 9:
Talk to moderates on the opposite side.
In theory, the Soviets were bound by their ideological dogmas to offer unconditional support for the PDPA only. In reality, while supporting Afghanistan’s ruling socialist regime, Soviet commanders did not refrain from reaching out to some of the moderate leaders among the mujahedeen, even though they espoused such “hostile ideologies” as political Islam and Pashtun nationalism. Such outreach proved to be important not only in reducing combat losses, but also in creating opportunities for reconciliation, which ultimately remained unused.
The Soviets likewise managed to establish direct contacts between commanders and chiefs of staff of Soviet units and “a multiplicity of [rebel] field commanders,” using Soviet military intelligence agents as liaisons, according to Gromov.
Gromov dedicated quite a few pages in his book to describing his contacts with such leaders, including Massoud, whose stronghold was in the Panjshir valley. “We were particularly interested in individual gangs’ attitudes toward the Afghan state authorities and the Soviet troops,” he wrote. Gromov noted that some of the field commanders would deal with OKSVA top brass, but would refuse to deal with official Afghan authorities. “Apparently, the mujahedeen believed they would benefit more from dealing with the Russians.
In addition, constant cooperation with the command of the Soviet troops gave them certain guarantees that this or that grouping would not be destroyed in the near future,” he wrote.
Those field commanders who cooperated with OKSVA would even sometimes receive medicines and food from the Soviet contingent, according to Gromov.
Overall, however, this cooptation fell short, mostly due to ideological dogmas. “Having bet on PDPA members and ignoring the Afghan elites established over the centuries, the Soviet leaders made themselves hostage to all these Tarakis, Amins, Karmals, Najibs [short for Najibullahs] and the like. This they understood much later, however,” Vasilyev, the military historian, wrote.
However, not all of this outreach was a waste. The contacts between Gromov and Massoud may have contributed to the latter’s desire to take a cooperative stance toward post-Soviet Russia.
Once the DRA regime fell apart and the Taliban rose to power, Massoud became one of the leaders of the so-called Northern Alliance, which post-Soviet Moscow supported in its effort to prevent an expansion of the Taliban’s influence into Central Asia in the 1990s.
Lesson 10:
When leaving, leave…
When describing how he engineered the withdrawal of the 40th Army in his book, Gromov does not cite the popular Russian adage “when leaving, leave,” sometimes attributed to Cicero.
However, the description itself proves that he persistently tried to do just that despite pressure from DRA rulers.
Had Gromov not been so persistent, Najibullah may have succeeded in persuading Moscow to keep the troops in-country, and the result of that “success” would have been only delaying the fall of his regime at the cost of more OKSVA casualties.
Moreover, had the Soviet soldiers stayed for three more years, they would have found the state they had sworn to defend vanish in December 1991.
Even as it was, the subsequent process of dividing Soviet units among the 15 newly independent republics proved to be chaotic and antagonistic at times, which would have seriously affected both the supplies and the morale of OKSVA had the contingent still been deployed.
Come 1992, and even the largest of the ex-Soviet republics, Russia, would have lacked the resources possessed by the USSR in 1989 to smoothly and securely withdraw the 40th army had post-Soviet Moscow claimed it for its own. In reality, when 1992 came, there were only seven “Soviet” military advisors left in Afghanistan and they all left the country in April of that year.
In his book Gromov describes multiple instances when Najibullah and some of the Soviet leaders kept coming up with options that would commit Soviet troops to stay in Afghanistan even after the announcement about withdrawal.
In 1988 “the government of Afghanistan made truly ‘heroic’ efforts to stop the 40th Army from leaving at any cost,” Gromov recalled in his book.
To do so, the Afghan Defense Ministry made repeated attempts to draw OKSVA into “large-scale combat,” while DRA diplomats argued that the withdrawal should be suspended because Pakistan was failing to fulfill its commitments under the 1988 Geneva Accords.
In one instance, also in 1988, Najibullah said that he would agree to the withdrawal of the 40th Army, but asked that Soviet volunteers guard Kabul’s airport and the Hairatan-Kabul highway, which would have required a 12,000-strong division, according to Gromov’s book.
A secret Central Committee memo of Jan. 23, 1989, described several options for providing military support to the DRA after the withdrawal, including one similar to what Najibullah asked for—to leave a 12,000-man division to guard the highway so that the Soviets could continue shipping aid. Another option was to ask the U.N. to deploy peacekeepers and keep Soviet troops in until they arrive.
A third option was to withdraw OKSVA, but have Soviet military units guard convoys with aid. The fourth option was to “withdraw almost all Soviet troops,” but leave some units behind so they could guard key parts of the Hairatan-Kabul highway. The fifth and final option was to withdraw all troops, but have the Soviet military send in ammunition and other supplies to fully equip and maintain Afghan government units guarding the highway.
Ultimately, the Soviet leadership rightly concluded that keeping in regular troops was not an option and withdrew all personnel except advisors, who at one point totaled 2,000, according to an interview Gareyev gave the Rodina journal in 1999.
The Soviet departure did not suffice to end the civil war, as some may have hoped based on the mujahedeen’s stated goal of driving out the Soviets; however, subsequent events proved that the Soviets’ Afghan allies could hold onto power even without Soviet soldiers and, therefore, without significant Soviet casualties, as long as Moscow continued to materially support the government.
Lesson 11:
…but before you leave, secure enforceable guarantees that POWs and MIAs are found and brought home, and give the returning soldiers proper welcome and care.
Describing how the last battalion of the 40th Army crossed into Termez under his command on Feb. 15, 1989, Gromov wrote how ordinary people embraced the returning soldiers heartily, but how also “not a single commander in Moscow even thought about how to organize greeting” them. “Were we supposed to greet ourselves? The attempt to overlook the withdrawal of the 40th Army from Afghanistan became another instance of tactlessness by those who worked in the Kremlin… They could have at least sent someone from the huge government staff or the Defense Ministry to meet us in Termez. It’s not every day we complete the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan,” Gromov wrote. He also wrote that some of the Soviet citizens welcoming home his last battalion were relatives of Soviet soldiers who had been killed in Afghanistan.
“Some of them, having received official notices and even having buried their loved ones, still hoped: What if he was alive, what if he would come out now?” Gromov wrote. Overall, 15,051 Soviet servicemen were killed in Afghanistan, according to a 2001 study edited by Col. Gen. Grigory Krivosheyev. As for Afghans, some 800,000-1,500,000 of them died during the intervention, according to one scholarly estimate.
Of those who did return, many suffered from post-traumatic disorders that often went untreated, while also encountering public disapproval from those with anti-war sentiments, much as Vietnam veterans initially did in the U.S.
The author of this paper encountered one such veteran in 1999. The former sniper, broad-shouldered, had served in a Soviet commando unit in Afghanistan and said the only means of relaxation his commanders had provided was an aquarium.
He also said his complaints about what he later realized to be a post-traumatic stress disorder were dismissed by commanders with phrases like: “What psychological stress?
Have you seen the size of your arms?” (meaning, presumably, that his physical fitness precluded any medical conditions).
According to a book by KGB officer Vladimir Garkavy, who completed multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan, “despondency, apathy and despair have become the companions of many veterans.” Garkavy wrote that some 500 veterans of the Soviet war in Afghanistan committed suicide in 2007 alone.
In addition to failing to organize a proper welcome to the returning troops or ensure adequate treatment of their war-induced disorders, the Soviet authorities also did not bother to include a clause on the return of Soviet MIAs in any of the so-called Geneva Accords,6 which were signed in 1988 and included three Afghan-Pakistan bilateral agreements on ending the war and a declaration on international guarantees signed by the U.S. and Soviet Union and meant to cut off U.S. and Soviet aid to the warring sides.
At the time, Gorbachev and his foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, “who concluded these treaties, seemed to be concerned only about convincing the public that they were not personally involved in the deployment of Soviet troops to Afghanistan and to disclaim responsibility for it.
Soviet soldiers and officers who were in captivity … were of little interest to them,” Lyakhovsky wrote in his book. According to Varennikov’s 1999 article, he and other Soviet commanders pleaded with Shevardnadze during a 1987 meeting to include clauses on reciprocal closure of rebel bases in Afghanistan and he agreed to push for them, but none made it into the accords.
Gromov also wrote in his book that the leadership of the 40th Army and Soviet Defense Ministry “insisted” the Soviet government insert a clause on the return of Soviet POWs and MIAs into the accords because “we had no moral right to leave Afghanistan until we liberated our soldiers or at least ascertained their fates.”
However, these demands were disregarded. According to the Krivosheyev study, 417 Soviet soldiers went missing or were taken captive in Afghanistan during the intervention, with 130 of them later found and returned home, leaving 287 MIAs and POWs as of Jan. 1, 1999; by 2013 the list had been whittled down to 263 people, according to a Moscow-based veterans’ organization.
Lesson 12:
…also before you leave, secure firm and enforceable agreements that would not only meet your own minimum requirements for a negotiated settlement, but also those of your local allies, because the end of an intervention by itself cannot end hostilities.
Had the Soviet Union managed to secure enforceable commitments from other external powers involved in the conflict to discontinue aid to the Afghan rebels in exchange for doing so itself, it might have at the very least delayed the fall of the friendly regime in Kabul. Moreover, that could have created a stalemate that would have made some of the warring factions more inclined to achieve national reconciliation. This, in turn, could have led to the emergence of a regime that would have been neutral toward Moscow rather than hostile like the Taliban. The latter ultimately gained the upper hand in Afghanistan in the 1990s before being ousted from power by a U.S.-led coalition and, at the time of this writing, was negotiating a power-sharing agreement with Washington.
Gareyev, Gromov and Kryuchkov all pointed out in their books and interviews that the Soviet withdrawal may have robbed the mujahedeen of one of their rhetorical casus belli, but it did not and could not have ended hostilities, as the rebels strove to finish off Najibullah’s regime. Yet the new Soviet leadership (Gorbachev and his team) was so keen to withdraw from Afghanistan that a POW/MIA clause was not the only one they forgot to insert into the Geneva Accords: While the U.S.-Soviet declaration obliged both countries to cut aid to warring factions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other sponsors of the Afghan mujahedeen either were not bound by the accords or ignored them, continuing to supply aid and rightly calculating that the Soviets were in no mood to enforce agreements as their country grew weaker.
Gromov wrote that Pakistan was failing to abide by the accords even as the Soviets honored their obligations: “We knew that the government of Pakistan did not really fulfill most of the clauses of the signed agreements. As before, insurgent bases operated on the territory of that country, [and] weapons were continuously flowing from there,” he wrote in his book. Gromov refrained from evaluating Pakistan’s failure to honor its commitments, but Gareyev was blunt in his criticism of the Soviet leadership’s failure to make Islamabad comply: “Neither the Soviet nor the Russian foreign ministries did anything to achieve the implementation of the Geneva Accords by the United States and Pakistan…
[While] the Soviet troops left, all the military bases and training centers of the mujahedeen in Pakistan remained. Soviet military aid to the Republic of Afghanistan was stopped, but the supply of weapons and ammunition to the mujahedeen continued,” he wrote.
“Why did we need long and expensive negotiations with the Americans and Pakistanis and the Geneva Accords if only one side abided by them and the other was not going to do anything? It would have been easier to withdraw the Soviet troops unilaterally and resolve the issue without any diplomatic games,” Gareyev wrote. Former KGB officer Garkavy struck a similar note in his book. He criticizes the Soviet leadership for committing to end assistance to Afghanistan in exchange for a U.S. commitment to end assistance to the mujahedeen because such reciprocity did nothing to stop aid that the Afghan rebels were getting from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt and Kuwait.
In addition to trying to obtain enforceable guarantees from external stakeholders, the Soviets could have also done more to press their own client into reconciliation when still providing the DRA with substantial aid because such aid could be used as leverage. As Gareyev wrote, “there were no tangible results in the implementation of the policy of national reconciliation. The concept of political settlement in Afghanistan put forward by the Afghan leadership was perceived by many [PDPA] party leaders as a loss of its current leading role in governing the country and, for many members of the leadership, as having to leave the government positions they held.”
Lesson 13:
Even after you leave, prevent mission creep.
Even when the bulk of the troops have been withdrawn and only a small contingent of military advisors are left behind to help the ally retain positions, it is important to continue avoiding mission creep. Otherwise, leaders of the (no longer) intervening power may find themselves in the same predicament as Al Pacino’s character in “Godfather III” when he exclaimed: “Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.” According to Gareyev, such mission creep nearly occurred again after the 40th Army was withdrawn with only 30 Soviet advisors and some guards left behind. The general recalled in his book how Dmitry Yazov, the-then defense minister, told him—when dispatching him to Afghanistan in 1989 to act as the chief Soviet military advisor after the 40th Army’s withdrawal—that his task was to make sure Najibullah’s regime survives for at least three or four months; if it did, Yazov argued, then maybe a political resolution of the conflict could be attained in that time.
But, seeing Najibullah’s regime last for a year after the OKSVA withdrawal, some top officials in the KGB and Foreign Ministry began to assert that Najibullah’s troops and their Soviet advisors had been on the defensive long enough and should now initiate “decisive, offensive actions in all directions,” Gareyev wrote. He also wrote that he had had a hard time convincing some leaders in Moscow to refrain from such “adventurist aspirations” that “could only lead to the most negative consequences.” It is easy to see how, if DRA forces would have gone on a major offensive, they could have suffered a disastrous defeat, strengthening the case made by Najibullah and some of his supporters in Moscow – who tried to prevent withdrawal of OKSVA – from brining the troops back in.
Lesson 14:
Last but not least: Be willing to learn the lessons.
Last but not least, strategists of an intervening power need to be willing to infer and internalize lessons that the intervention has generated. Otherwise, they will be more likely to repeat mistakes and less likely to replicate some of the intervention’s successes.
An estimated 620,000 Soviet soldiers and officers were rotated in and out of Afghanistan during the 10-year campaign. (The author of this paper still remembers, as an adolescent, the sinking feeling upon seeing his father, Soviet Air Force Lt. Colonel Karen Saradzhyan, pack for another komandirovka to Afghanistan at the time.)
However, while the rank-and-file learned to fight in the country’s rugged mountains because it was a matter of survival, not all of their commanders did. Members of the military-political leadership need to be willing to learn the lessons that present themselves during a campaign—that is the final lesson inferred for this paper from Soviet commanders’ and officials’ recollections of the country’s intervention in Afghanistan.
According to Gromov, in the summer of 1981, with the intervention well into its second year, the Soviet Defense Ministry decided to send the commanders of several military districts to Afghanistan for several days to learn the lessons learned there by the OKSVA. Many of the dispatched high commanders and their staff officers showed no real interest, however, thinking the lessons would be of little use to them because the local war was local whereas they had been preparing for a major international conflict with NATO. Ironically, though his book came out in 1994 when Russians troops were fighting an anti-insurgency campaign in the mountains of Chechnya, which was in some ways similar to Afghanistan, Gromov did not draw such a parallel. Rather than focus on lessons, some of the commanders spent much of their time in Afghanistan examining whether barracks were tidy, “whether the soldiers’ beds were made and there were slippers next to the nightstands,” Gromov wrote.
When these visiting commanders did venture out to combat areas, they were asking why there is no loudspeaker communication between the commander and his artillery unit. “By and large, no one got interested in the experience we acquired. It was simply ignored and it was not integrated into education. Apparently, they believed it was better to keep silent about the war in Afghanistan.
I think the reason the war was initiated should not affect whether the invaluable combat experience [accumulated over its course] is studied or not,” Gromov wrote. Soviet advisors likewise did not apply the inferable lessons when shaping the Afghan military they were advising. “How did it happen that the structure of the Afghan armed forces was created exactly according to our model and the experience of a nine-year war did not yield any changes in that structure,” KGB general Shebarshin wrote in his book after more than 20 tours of duty in Afghanistan.
Finally, a year and a half after ascending to the post of general secretary in March 1985, Gorbachev too faulted the Soviet military top brass for failing to infer and learn some lessons from the Afghan war. “In Afghanistan, we have been fighting for six years,” Gorbachev told a Nov. 13, 1986, meeting of the Politburo. “If you do not change the approaches, then we will be fighting there for another 20-30 years.
This would cast a shadow on our ability to influence the development of events. I must also tell our military that they are learning poorly from this war. … In general, we have not found the keys to solving this problem. Are we going to fight endlessly, as testimony that our troops are not able to deal with the situation? We need this process completed soon,” he said.
Thoughts and summy of the 14 lessons.
As demonstrated above, the Soviet leadership made a number of mistakes, first [1] when contemplating whether to intervene in Afghanistan, then [2] during the intervention and, finally, [3] when withdrawing the troops.
Some of these mistakes were particularly costly, such as the failure to take full stock either of the hierarchy of vital national interests at stake in Afghanistan or of the costs and benefits of intervention. Had the leaders in Moscow paid attention to the full array of potential costs presented to them, they may have avoided the fateful error of sending troops en masse across the Soviet-Afghan border.
The Soviet leadership also erred in failing to clearly formulate the troops’ mission beyond regime change, creating confusion and debates among top commanders about what it is they were supposed to achieve in Afghanistan once Amin was replaced with Karmal and how.
Whatever the mission, the Soviet military operations would have probably dealt greater setbacks to the armed Afghan opposition at lower costs to the Soviet troops if the various Soviet government agencies had fostered effective coordination of their activities from the very beginning—including, first and foremost, the sharing of intelligence on the ground.
The Soviets eventually learned the importance of such sharing and corrected the mistake.
However, even such coordination, or better training of DRA forces by their mentors, could not have led to a decisive defeat of the opposition forces as long as many of the DRA forces remained unwilling to fight.
Therefore, it was a matter of time before the Soviets realized that their only option was to leave. That was the right decision, which was made in spite of pressure from the DRA ruling elite. However, while leaving was the right move and its military component (the actual withdrawal of troops) was executed well, the diplomatic and political aspects of that maneuver were not without flaw. Not only did the Soviet government fail to secure guarantees for the return of POWs and MIAs, but it also failed to secure enforceable commitments from other external powers involved in the conflict to discontinue aid to the Afghan rebels in what could have at the very least delayed the fall of Najibullah’s regime.
The Soviet intervention in Afghanistan was not what bankrupted the Soviet Union or led to its collapse, contrary to U.S. President Donald Trump’s January 2019 take on Soviet Russia’s experiences in Afghanistan, which he offered as he argued in favor of a U.S. troop withdrawal from the country. Rather, as Yegor Gaidar convincingly demonstrated, a combination of structural economic and other factors played the lead role in the demise of the Soviet empire. However, that intervention, which caused horrendous hardship for many Afghans, did contribute to the demise by imposing formidable human, financial, economic, political and reputational costs on the Soviet Union, despite the fact that Soviet leaders did eventually realize some of the mistakes they had made in Afghanistan and sought to correct them.
Not all erroneous decisions can be reversed and some of them can have disastrous consequences.
Therefore, if faced with a situation that passes May’s test for historical analogies to the Soviet predicament vis-à-vis Afghanistan, Western leaders would do well to learn from those mistakes, rather than make their own, even if some senior Russian legislators are now planning to convince their compatriots that the Soviet intervention was the right thing to do.
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.
Debacle.
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…
The USA should stay?
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
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.#Afghanistanhttps://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
History repeats.
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.
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!
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!
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 Muhandishttps://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.
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.
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?
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.
Caribou aircraft.
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...
Dear [redacted]
” China will not initiate trouble but is not afraid of trouble “
” Willing to talk ? The door is wide open !
Want to fight ? We will entertain you ! “
Absolutely, Chua !
In a nutshell, that’s my life philosophy !
Or as President Xi Jinping said
准 备 打 仗 打 胜 仗
Zhun3 Bei4 Da3 Zhang4 Da3 Sheng4 Zhang4
Be ready to fight victoriously !
And then we have this little blub that also came to the MM mailbox...
From [redacted]
Peace can sometimes only be achieved via well armed and the readiness in hit back.
The reason US and NATO dare not attack Russia is because they are well armed with nuclear weapons, and putin has made it clear that “don’t F with a nation with nuclear weapons.” putin also warn US, “if there is any missile fly toward Russia, Russia will regard it as nuclear attack, and will immediately response with nuclear missiles. ” this is why no one dare to bomb the Russian (including their military bases in Syria.)
When trump visited Beijing before starting the trade war, China offer trump $235b worth of deal. Guest what happen next?
Trump think that China is afraid of US, and thinking he can demand more from China. He has instead begin his first stage of trade war and announce to move on to the 2nd stage within months. He then claim that trade war is easy to win.
What trump didn’t expect is that China hit back.
China never stab on anyone on the back. China has made it clear all the times, “China will not initiate trouble and are not afraid of trouble”
China also make it clear: ” willing to talk? The door is wide open! Want to fight? We will entertain you.”
So, China simply respond to a situation initiated by the crusaders Nd not stabbing on people back. We should not expect China simply stood there fir people to bomb.
In Australia, China has issue numerous warning before hitting back.
China outline a 14 grievance created by Australia.
In Chinese history, they rather build wall, marrying princess, and initial a tribute system to keep peace, but if someone push too hard thinking they are in the position of strength, they will eventually be crushed .
This is not back stabbing. This is a last resort to keep peace.
The defeat of the crusaders in the Korean war allow China to enjoy the next 50 years of relative peace with the crusaders.
Today, the armed with AK47 Taliban successfully chase away the crusaders simply because they fight back.
Only when the crusaders are defeated, the Afghanistan people can then rebuilt their nation and looking forward to a better future with China belt and road.
Asia will again become the world most peaceful and wealthy region before the end of 21st century when China successfully chase away the trouble maker from the region.
The crusaders can also enjoy peace and prosperity if they change their mindset and get rid of their corrupt, low quality fake democratic political system. They need to control property price, nationalised industry that provide basic needs to the people like water, electricity, mining, health, pension fund, education, public transport etc like what China do.
Wealth redistribution from Wall Street to allow the 99% also doing well. This will automatically make a nation strong, a society in harmony.
Cheers
[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...
Whether you supported the 20-year war in Afghanistan or not, if you are American, you paid for it. Two Trillion Dollars. Your personal tax tab is 7 thousand dollars.
If you sent a relative or friend into this horror in South Asia, you paid an emotional price also.
If your relative or friend lost his or her life, you paid again, most grievously.
If you are one who returned, PTSD is taking a toll on your life. You pay every night and day, psychologically.
If you came back with traumatic wounds, you pay each moment as you try to rehabilitate and recover.
And with all these payments and losses you sit in front of a TV or monitor and watch the most feckless, incompetent leadership on the face of the Earth. You see total disorder, amateur thinking, and disgraceful performance of State Dept. and US Military. The top command and elected officials, the top counselors and advisers, each and every one clueless, ignorant, flummoxed by reality. They know nothing and can do nothing. Yet, they lead the country.
If you are fond of NATO, the alliance just took a huge hit.
So, the 75 years of unity and the 20 years of joint operations in Afghan are tossed away unilaterally. NATO is fracturing.
They know Biden is a fraud and the US is aimless.
You finally hear from the President of the United States, the reasoning that was the policy and follow through. It makes no sense. The old man is irrational.
Day after day this continuing catastrophe you see the same imbeciles prove over and over that they don’t know how to think, organize, lead or inspire.
Admiral John Kirby spokesman for the Defense Dept., Ned Price spokesman for State Dept., Jan Psaki spokeswoman for the WH, all of them know nothing, have no facts to report, seem bewildered by simple questions.
Listening to Jake Sullivan, NSC explains, is more naïveté and kindergarten-level thinking.
Mark Milley and Lloyd Austin are a quiniela of incompetence, both are lost in Critical Race Theory and too busy to win a war, command an evacuation, secure billions of dollars in lethal weaponry or answer a simple question with believable facts. Two Four-Star Dumb and Dumbers.
These dolts cut off the US government pipeline for the citizens caught inside Afghanistan, their lifeline to the State Dept. and consular staff has gone just when they need them.
These jackasses sent off all the resources their citizens needed for evacuation.
They inadvertently point blame to the Clown-in-Chief Biden, who reflexively blames Trump for the policy Biden created.
Then the inept US military took six days to bring in 7000 troops to work security at the airport. These troops, they told us, were pre-positioned and ready to go. Another massive failure of military logistical performance.
There are more days of this until the artificial deadline on the 31st. The odds are there will be 20-30,000 Americans and Afghanis who worked for and with our military left behind. This is totally unacceptable. They will become hostages to Taliban authorities.
The only good result of this debacle is it hurts Biden politically and makes a change in the Congress much more likely in 2022.
Biden’s Kabul is worse than Ford’s Saigon and Carter’s Tehran. And it is far from over.
As a citizen, you are embarrassed, ashamed, insulted, depressed, left helpless, enraged, and damn angry at the juvenile operational disaster in plain sight at Kabul airport.
Biden and Harris should be impeached. The entire NSC staff should be fired. The JCS chief and the JCS staff and the SOD should be fired. The State Dept. from top-down to consular staff should be fired.
It is their turn to pay for this national embarrassment, geopolitical disaster, and human tragedy.
August 12, 2021. History will register it as the day the Taliban, nearly 20 years after 9/11 and the subsequent toppling of their 1996-2001 reign by American bombing, struck the decisive blow against the central government in Kabul.
In a coordinated blitzkrieg, the Taliban all but captured three crucial hubs: Ghazni and Kandahar in the center, and Herat in the west. They had already captured most of the north. As it stands, the Taliban control 14 (italics mine) provincial capitals and counting.
First thing in the morning, they took Ghazni, which is situated around 140 kilometers from Kabul. The repaved highway is in good condition. Not only are the Taliban moving closer and closer to Kabul: for all practical purposes they now control the nation’s top artery, Highway 1 from Kabul to Kandahar via Ghazni.
That in itself is a strategic game-changer. It will allow the Taliban to encircle and besiege Kabul simultaneously from north and south, in a pincer movement.
Kandahar fell by nightfall after the Taliban managed to breach the security belt around the city, attacking from several directions.
In Ghazni, provincial governor Daoud Laghmani cut a deal, fled and then was arrested. In Kandahar, provincial governor Rohullah Khanzada – who belongs to the powerful Popolzai tribe – left with only a few bodyguards.
He opted to engage in an elaborate deal, convincing the Taliban to allow the remaining military to retreat to Kandahar airport and be evacuated by helicopter. All their equipment, heavy weapons and ammunition should be transferred to the Taliban.
Afghan Special Forces represented the cream of the crop in Kandahar. Yet they were only protecting a few select locations. Now their next mission may be to protect Kabul. The final deal between the governor and the Taliban should be struck soon. Kandahar has indeed fallen.
In Herat, the Taliban attacked from the east while notorious former warlord Ismail Khan, leading his militia, put up a tremendous fight from the west. The Taliban progressively conquered the police HQ, “liberated” prison inmates and laid siege to the governor’s office.
Game over: Herat has also fallen with the Taliban now controlling the whole of Western Afghanistan, all the way to the borders with Iran.
Tet Offensive, remixed
Military analysts will have a ball deconstructing this Taliban equivalent to the 1968 Tet Offensive in Vietnam. Satellite intel may have been instrumental: it’s as if the whole battlefield progress had been coordinated from above.
Yet there are some quite prosaic reasons for the success of the onslaught apart from strategic acumen: corruption in the Afghan National Army (ANA); total disconnect between Kabul and battlefield commanders; lack of American air support; the deep political divide in Kabul itself.
In parallel, the Taliban had been secretly reaching out for months, through tribal connections and family ties, offering a deal: don’t fight us and you will be spared.
Add to it a deep sense of betrayal by the West felt by those connected with the Kabul government, mixed with fear of Taliban revenge against collaborationists.
A very sad subplot, from now on, concerns civilian helplessness – felt by those who consider themselves trapped in cities that are now controlled by the Taliban. Those that made it before the onslaught are the new Afghan IDPs, such as the ones who set up a refugee camp in the Sara-e-Shamali park in Kabul.
A new generation of IDPs in Afghanistan.
Rumors were swirling in Kabul that Washington had suggested to President Ashraf Ghani to resign, clearing the way for a ceasefire and the establishment of a transitional government.
On the record, what’s established is that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Pentagon chief Lloyd Austin promised Ghani to “remain invested” in Afghan security.
Reports indicate the Pentagon plans to redeploy 3,000 troops and Marines to Afghanistan and another 4,000 to the region to evacuate the US Embassy and US citizens in Kabul.
The alleged offer to Ghani actually originated in Doha – and came from Ghani’s people, as I confirmed with diplomatic sources.
The Kabul delegation, led by Abdullah Abdullah, the chairman of something called the High Council for National Reconciliation, via Qatar mediation, offered the Taliban a power-sharing deal as long as they stop the onslaught. There’s been no mention of Ghani resigning, which is the Taliban’s number one condition for any negotiation.
The extended troika in Doha is working overtime. The US lines up immovable object Zalmay Khalilzad, widely mocked in the 2000s as “Bush’s Afghan.” The Pakistanis have special envoy Muhammad Sadiq and ambassador to Kabul Mansoor Khan.
The Russians have the Kremlin’s envoy to Afghanistan, Zamir Kabulov. And the Chinese have a new Afghan envoy, Xiao Yong.
Russia-China-Pakistan are negotiating with a Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) frame of mind: all three are permanent members. They emphasize a transition government, power-sharing, and recognition of the Taliban as a legitimate political force.
Diplomats are already hinting that if the Taliban topple Ghani in Kabul, by whatever means, they will be recognized by Beijing as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan – something that will set up yet another incendiary geopolitical front in the confrontation against Washington.
As it stands, Beijing is just encouraging the Taliban to strike a peace agreement with Kabul.
The Pashtunistan riddle
Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has minced no words as he stepped into the fray. He confirmed the Taliban leadership told him there’s no negotiation with Ghani in power – even as he tried to persuade them to reach for a peace deal.
Khan accused Washington of regarding Pakistan as “useful” only when it comes to pressing Islamabad to use its influence over the Taliban to broker a deal – without considering the “mess” the Americans left behind.
Khan once again said he “made it very clear” there will be no US military bases in Pakistan.
This is a very good analysis of how hard it is for Khan and Islamabad to explain Pakistan’s complex involvement with Afghanistan to the West and also the Global South.
The key issues are quite clear:
1. Pakistan wants a power-sharing deal and is doing what it can in Doha, along the extended troika, to reach it.
2. A Taliban takeover will lead to a new influx of refugees and may encourage jihadis of the al-Qaeda, TTP and ISIS-Khorasan kind to destabilize Pakistan.
3. It was the US that legitimized the Taliban by striking an agreement with them during the Donald Trump administration.
4. And because of the messy withdrawal, the Americans reduced their leverage – and Pakistan’s – over the Taliban.
The problem is Islamabad simply does not manage to get these messages across.
And then there are some bewildering decisions. Take the AfPak border between Chaman (in Pakistan’s Balochistan) and Spin Boldak (in Afghanistan).
The Pakistanis closed their side of the border. Every day tens of thousands of people, overwhelmingly Pashtun and Baloch, from both sides cross back and forth alongside a mega-convoy of trucks transporting merchandise from the port of Karachi to landlocked Afghanistan. To shut down such a vital commercial border is an unsustainable proposition.
All of the above leads to arguably the ultimate problem: what to do about Pashtunistan?
The absolute heart of the matter when it comes to Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan and Afghan interference in the Pakistani tribal areas is the completely artificial, British Empire-designed Durand Line.
Islamabad’s definitive nightmare is another partition. Pashtuns are the largest tribe in the world and they live on both sides of the (artificial) border. Islamabad simply cannot admit a nationalist entity ruling Afghanistan because that will eventually foment a Pashtun insurrection in Pakistan.
And that explains why Islamabad prefers the Taliban compared to an Afghan nationalist government. Ideologically, conservative Pakistan is not that dissimilar from the Taliban positioning. And in foreign policy terms, the Taliban in power perfectly fit the unmovable “strategic depth” doctrine that opposes Pakistan to India.
In contrast, Afghanistan’s position is clear-cut. The Durand Line divides Pashtuns on both sides of an artificial border. So any nationalist government in Kabul will never abandon its desire for a larger, united Pashtunistan.
As the Taliban are de facto a collection of warlord militias, Islamabad has learned by experience how to deal with them. Virtually every warlord – and militia – in Afghanistan is Islamic.
Even the current Kabul arrangement is based on Islamic law and seeks advice from an Ulema council. Very few in the West know that Sharia law is the predominant trend in the current Afghan constitution.
Closing the circle, ultimately all members of the Kabul government, the military, as well as a great deal of civil society come from the same conservative tribal framework that gave birth to the Taliban.
Apart from the military onslaught, the Taliban seem to be winning the domestic PR battle because of a simple equation: they portray Ghani as a NATO and US puppet, the lackey of foreign invaders.
And to make that distinction in the graveyard of empires has always been a winning proposition.
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, personalitiesandbeliefs 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.
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.
Reportersbragaboutgetting 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 (whichis underincreasing pressureby 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 wasencouragingtheplot, 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...
Oh, did you see this?
Biden forfeits his Afghan victory by defending his Deep State advisors
By Michael Hudson, first posted at Unz Review and Expanded for The Saker Blog
President Biden put a popular flag-waving wrapping for at America’s forced withdrawal from Afghanistan in his 4 PM speech on Monday. It was as if all this was following Biden’s own intentions, not a demonstration of the totally incompetent assurances by the CIA and State Department as recently as last Friday that the Taliban was over a month away from being able to enter Kabul. Instead of saying that the massive public support for the Taliban replacing the United States showed the incompetent hubris of U.S. intelligence agencies – which itself would have justified Biden’s agreement to complete the withdrawal with all haste – he doubled down on his defense of the Deep State and its mythology.
The effect was to show how drastic his own misconceptions are, and how he will continue to defend neocon adventurism. What seemed for an hour or so as a public relations recovery is turning into a denouement of how U.S. fantasy is still trying to threaten Asia and the Near East.
By throwing all his weight behind the propaganda that has guided U.S. policy since George W. Bush decided to invade after 9/11, Biden blew his greatest chance to burst the myths that led to his own bad decisions to trust U.S. military and state officials (and their campaign contributors).
His first pretense was that we invaded Afghanistan to retaliate against “its” attack on America on 9/11. This is the founding lie of U.S. presence in the Near East. Afghanistan did not attack us. Saudi Arabia did.
Biden tried to confuse the issue by saying that “we” went into Afghanistan to deal with (assassinate) Osama Bin Laden – and after this “victory,” we then then decided to stay on and “build democracy,” a euphemism for creating a U.S. client state. (Any such state is called a “democracy,” which means simply pro-American in today’s diplomatic vocabulary.)
Hardly anyone asks how the U.S. ever got in. Jimmy Carter was suckered by the Polish Russia-hater Brzezinski and created Al Qaeda to act as America’s foreign legion, subsequently expanded to include ISIS and other terrorist armies against countries where U.S. diplomacy seeks regime change. Carter’s alternative to Soviet Communism was Wahabi fanaticism, solidifying America’s alliance with Saudi Arabia. Carter memorably said that at least these Muslims believed in God, just like Christians. But the Wahabi fundamentalism army was sponsored by Saudi Arabia, which paid for arming Al Qaeda to fight against Sunni Moslems and, early on, the Russian-backed Afghan government.
What is so typical of America’s aggressive Cold War mindset is that it could have much more easily (and at much lower cost) won Afghanistan by honey, by having so much more to offer economically than did Russia. Documents released from Soviet archives show that:
None of the Soviet documents list terrorists going into the USSR as a concern in 1979. The Soviet worry was the incompetence and worse of their Afghan Communist clients, the declining Soviet influence (much less control) in the country, and the possibility of Afghanistan going over to the Americans.
Soviet Politburo documents that first became available in the 1990s show the real Soviet fear was that the head of the Afghan Communist regime, Hafizullah Amin, was about to go over to the Americans. (Egyptian president Anwar Sadat famously flipped in 1972, ejected thousands of Soviet advisers, and became the second largest recipient, after Israel, of U.S. foreign aid.)[1]
This policy predates President Carter, of course.
It was endemic in America’s Cold War force-oriented strategy since the 1950s.
Over 60 years ago, for instance, I sat in on a meeting with Fidel Castro’s representatives trying to get support from the Democratic Party and Kennedy for their overthrow of the Batista regime.
Imagining that it was the Republicans and the Dulles brothers that were the hardliners, they expected that the incoming Democratic Party diplomacy would find their self-interest in giving economic support to help Cuba’s economy recover from the corrupt dictatorship.
My father warned them that the Democrats would be just as force-oriented.
On my visits to Cuba, it was obvious that the population and even many government officials would have welcomed a deal whereby the loosened their Castroite economic policy in exchange for U.S. aid.
The United States has never tried to use this tactic in the Caribbean or Latin America, any more than it has done in Afghanistan.
That is the neocon mentality:
“Do it by force, don’t give any other country a choice.”
A “market-based” tradeoff of aid for economic policy acquiescence is not U.S. policy. Offering a carrot still leaves the choice to America’s designated adversary.
The only way to make sure that a country will obey is to confront it with brute force.
That is the mentality behind U.S. support for Maidan and the neo-Nazi Bandaristas opposing Russia instead of simply trying to help reform Ukraine.
And so it has gone in Afghanistan. After Carter, George W. Bush and Barack Obama funded Al Qaeda (largely with the gold looted from destroying Libya) to fight for U.S. geopolitical aims and oil in Iraq and Syria.
The Taliban for its part fought against Al Quaeda.
The real U.S. fear therefore is not that they may back America’s Wahabi foreign legion, but that they will make a deal with Russia, China and Syria to serve as a trade link from Iran westward.
Biden’s second myth was to blame the victim by claiming that the Afghan army would not fight for “their country,” despite his assurances by the proxies whom the U.S. installed that they would use U.S. money to build the economy.
He also said that the army did not fight, which became obvious over the weekend.
The police force also did not fight. Nobody fought the Taliban to “defend their country,” because the U.S. occupation regime was not “their country.” Again and again, Biden repeated that the United States could not save a country that would not “defend itself.” But the “itself” was the corrupt regime that was simply pocketing U.S. “aid” money.
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.
That was the reply of the Afghan army to U.S. demands that they fight for the corrupt occupation force that they had installed.
Their aim is to survive in a new country, while in Doha the Taliban leadership negotiates with China, Russia and even the United States to achieve a modus vivendi.
So all that Biden’s message meant to most Americans was that we would not waste any more lives and money fighting wars for an ungrateful population that wanted the U.S. to do all the fighting for it.
President Biden could have come out and washed away the blame by saying: “Just before the weekend, I was told by my army generals and national security advisors that it would take months for the Taliban to conquer Afghanistan, and certainly to take control of Kabul, which supposedly would be a bloody fight.”
He could have announced that he is removing the incompetent leadership engrained for many years, and creating a more reality-based group.
But of course, he could not do that, because the group is the unreality-based neocon Deep State.
He was not about to explain how
“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.”
He could have acknowledged that the Afghans welcomed the Taliban into Kabul without a fight.
The army stood aside, and the police stood aside.
There seemed to be a party celebrating the American withdrawal.
Restaurants and markets were open, and Kabul seemed to be enjoying normal life – except for the turmoil at the airport.
Suppose that Biden had said the following:
“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.”
Instead, President Biden spoke about having made four trips to Afghanistan and how much he knew and trusted the proxies that U.S. agencies had installed.
That made him seem gullible.
Even Donald Trump said publicly that he didn’t trust the briefings that he was given, and wanted to spend money at home, into the hands of his own campaign contributors instead of abroad.
Biden could have picked up on this point by saying,
“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.”
But instead President Biden doubled down on what his neocon advisors had told him, and what they were repeating on the TV news channels all day: The Afghan army had refused to fight “for their country,” meaning the U.S.-supported occupation force, as if this was really Afghan self-government.
The media are showing pictures of the Afghan palace and one of the warlord’s office.
I did a double-take, because the plush, wretched-excess furnishings looked just like Obama’s $12 million McMansion furnishings in Martha’s Vineyard.
Obama officials are being trotted out by the news spinners.
On MSNBC, John Brennan warned Andrea Mitchell at noon that the Taliban might now back Al Qaeda in new destabilization and even use Afghanistan to mount new attacks on the United States.
The message was almost word for word what Americans were told in 1964:
“If we don’t fight the Vietcong in their country, we’ll have to fight them over here.”
As if any country has an armed force large enough to conquer any industrial nation in today’s world.
The whole cast of America’s “humanitarian bombing” squad was there, including its harridan arm, the Democratic Party’s front organizations created to co-opt feminists to urging that Afghanistan be bombed until it treats women better.
One can only imagine how the image of Samantha Power, Madeline Albright, Hillary Clinton, Susan and Condoleezza Rice, not to mention Indira Gandhi and Golda Maier, will make the Taliban want to create its own generation of ambitious educated women like these.
President Biden might have protected himself from Republican criticism by reminding his TV audience that Donald Trump had urged withdrawal from Afghanistan already last spring –and now, in retrospect, that the Deep State was wrong to advise against this but that Donald was right.
That is what his order for withdrawal was acknowledging, after all. This might have detoothed at least some Trumpian criticism.
Instead, Mr. Brennan and the generals trotted in front of the TV cameras criticized Biden for not prolonging the occupation until the fall, when cold weather would deter the Taliban from fighting.
Brennan stated on Andrea Mitchell’s newscast that Biden should have taken a ploy out of his “The Art of Breaking the Deal” by breaking the former president’s promise to withdraw last spring.
Delay, delay, delay.
That is always the stance of grabitizers refusing to see the resistance building up, hoping to take what they can get for as long as they can – with the “they” being the military-industrial complex, the suppliers of mercenary forces and other recipients of the money that Mr. Biden curiously says that we spent “in Afghanistan.”
The reality is that not much of the notorious $3 trillion actually was spent in Afghanistan.
It was spent on Raytheon, Boeing and other military hardware suppliers, on the mercenary forces, and placed in the accounts of the Afghan proxies for the U.S….
…maneuvering to use Afghanistan…
…to destabilize Central Asia on Russia’s southern flank and western China.
It looks like most of the world will quickly recognize the Afghan government, leaving the U.S., Israel, Britain, India and perhaps Samoa isolated as a recalcitrant block living like the post-World War I royal families still clinging to their titles of dukes, princes and other vestiges of a world that had passed.
Biden’s political mistake was to blame the victim and depict the Taliban victory as a defeat of a cowardly army not willing to fight for its paymasters.
He seems to imagine that the army actually had been paid, provided with food, clothing and weapons in recent months simply because U.S. officials gave their local proconsuls and supporters cash for this purpose.
I understand that there is no real accounting of just what the $3 trillion U.S. cost was actually spent on, who got it the shrink-wrapped bundles of hundred-dollar bills passed down through America’s occupation bureaucracy.
(I bet the serial numbers were not recorded. Imagine if that were done and the U.S. could announce these C-notes demonetized!)
The U.S. is now (20 years after the time it should have begun) trying to formulate a Plan B.
Its strategists probably hope to achieve in Afghanistan what occurred after the Americans left Saigon: An economic free-for-all that U.S. companies can co-opt by offering business opportunities.
On the other hand, there are reports that Afghanistan may sue the United States for reparations for the illegal occupation and destruction still going on as the country is being bombed in Biden’s flurry of B-52 anger.
Such a claim, of course, would open the floodgates for similar suits by Iraq and Syria – and the Hague in Holland has shown itself to be a NATO kangaroo court.
But I would expect Afghanistan’s new friends in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization to back such a suit in a new international court, if only to block any hopes by U.S. companies of achieving by financial leverage what the State Department, CIA and Pentagon could not achieve militarily.
In any case, Biden’s parting shot of nasty bombing of Taliban centers can only convince the new leadership to solidify its negotiations with its nearest regional neighbors with their promise to help save Afghanistan from any American, British or NATO attempt to try and come back in and “restore democracy.”
The world has seen enough of Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s “rules based order”.
And President Biden’s pretended history on whose mythology U.S. policy will continue to be based.
Add: It is not an accident that the politicians backed by the United States are so corrupt, ruling corrupt bureaucracies that increasingly alienate local populations.
There is a deliberate thought-out reason why American diplomats choose to work with such opportunistic grabitizers as clients whom they place in control.
It is precisely such people whom the U.S. sponsors can trust.
Suppose that you have some truly democratic idealists whose aim is to develop their country.
The problem is that such individuals cannot be trusted to follow U.S. diplomatic aims.
They may act on their own – and go their own way, independently of U.S. direction.
That is a risk that U.S. diplomats never choose to take.
The result is much like corporate bureaucracy, where opportunistic CEOs choose yes-men (or yes-women if they seek protective coloration by posturing as more woke). Such subordinates will support the boss in his own maneuvering, not serve the welfare of the firm.
That is why Boeing preferred financial managers to engineers, whose logic might not be that of the increasingly financialized company.
The aim of U.S. “aid” is not to help the country – or even to help “America” – but to help U.S. arms exporters, contractors, big engineering firms, and neocon ideologues in the CIA and State Department, along with ambitious generals in the military seeking a path to promotion and retirement on the board of directors of the military-industrial complex.
All this was expressed crisply by Zbigniew Brzezinski in famous advice for U.S. hegemonic strategy on the Eurasian continent:
Its aim should be…
“to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and keep the barbarians from coming together.”
What kind of local leader indeed could one expect to implement such policy?
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...
When Ichiro played in the Major Leagues, he was always hounded by a mob of Japanese journalists and photographers, starting with the first day of Spring Training.
Sick of this, he told an interviewer he wished they would just disappear.“From your life?”“No, from this earth.”
The USA, though, is not being pestered but deformed, debilitated and, well, frankly destroyed by a host of people, many of whom you may not have heard of, so let’s us:
Imagine there’s no George Soros,
No Bill Gates, Rupert Murdoch or Klaus Schwab, too.
No Jeff Zucker, Mark Zuckerberg, Arthur Sulzberger,
Jonathan Greenblatt, Larry Fink, David Solomon,
Robert Iger, Charles Scharf, Jamie Dimon,
Steve Schwarzman, Jeremy Zimmer, Len Blavatnik,
Andy Slavitt, Jeffrey Zients, Anthony Fauci,
Jessica Rosenworcel, Janet Yellen, Gary Gensler,
Betsy Berns Korn, Mort Fridman or, what the hell,
Nancy Pelosi also, mostly because she’s so icky.
Even more than most lists, it’s highly incomplete, but you get the idea.
Or maybe not. It’s too eclectic, you say, if not confusing.
What do they have in common?
They are all social engineers, out to remake America in ways that have nothing to do, at least initially, with the wishes of its majority…
… so there goes your democracy.
And that's the way it is, Jack!
As new norms are relentlessly propagandized, legalized then imposed, most Americans will learn to embrace their newly cowed, castrated selves.
Many clearly have.
When I tried to indict a cynical and sinister Uncle Sam in my last article, one who has wrecked not just dozens of foreign countries, but America itself, several readers took offense, not at Sammy, the Jew-jerked puppet, but me!
Clearly, they identify with the steel boots that are pinned on their faces, so fine, let them embrace their increasingly wretched fate, but what about others? What about their children?
Due to their parents’ nauseating cowardice, American kids are inheriting hell.
Notice I didn’t bother to list Biden, not because he’s already dead, but because American politicians are merely cabana boys and girls for their social engineering paymasters.
From president on down, they decide absolutely nothing.
Truly moronic…
… Americans keep waiting for the next election to vote in their savior…
… or they vote for an “independent” candidate as a symbolic gesture.
By merely voting, however, they endorse a system that’s openly destroying them.
With voting machines that can’t be audited, American presidential elections are designed to be rigged, with one of two vetted candidates allowed to win to keep the intramural bickering and catfight lurching along, to distract the dummies from seeing what’s going on.
(The last American politician with any integrity was Cynthia McKinney, and they’ve chased her all the way to Bangladesh. Once disappeared, she’s never mentioned by any former colleague, such is their collective cowardice.)
In any case, you don’t want to turn a clown like Obama or Trump, say, into a martyr or, God forbid, national hero, to be worshipped for centuries.
Not that America is likely to last another decade, especially since most of its “patriots” are curled up, with their eyes shut tight, as waves of degeneracy, idiocy and infamy lap over them.
As their family graves are routinely crapped on by their ruling wardens, these pant-soiling patriots keep muttering, “Please don’t fire, deplatform or cancel me, massa! I’ll do whatever you say. I’ve never whispered one bad word about you, not even online. I’ve only used my internet privilege to spit at Afghan refugees and Mexican dishwashers, but no, no, no, I’m no racist! Black lives matter! Please give me the blackest flip-flop to french kiss!”
Conditioned by Hollywood to enjoy others being chopped or blown up, many Americans are getting a kick out of the current terror and panic in Afghanistan.
Some justify this sick schadenfreude by saying these Afghans are collaborators who fully deserve their punishment or even death, but guess which country has provided the most collaborators, by far, to the evil empire?
America, of course.
To the millions who have fought for war profiteers and Jews, you must add all the employees of Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, General Dynamics and Raytheon, etc., as well as all the academics who go along with the perverted, mostly Jewish-led social engineering agenda, and the journalists who spew nonsense and lies daily, on and on, so that, really, about the only innocent Americans are the little kids, those who will inherit a hellish, denatured reality as constructed by their clueless or spineless parents, not to mention an astronomical mountain of debts, as brought into being by a Jewish-dominated banking system.
Many Americans are also laughing at the quick collapse of the Afghan Army, but 66,000 of them did die fighting the Taliban and other opposition groups (who themselves suffered 51,191 deaths). 117,191 Afghan men, then, laid down their lives over conflicting versions of Afghanistan.
Do prove me wrong, but the only country that’s going down without any fight whatsoever is the United States of America.
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
Updated 12:54, 14-Aug-2021
CGTN
A five-day joint military exercise between China and Russia, named ZAPAD/INTERACTION-2021, concluded Friday in northwest China’s Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.
A four-phase exercise was held on Friday morning and attended by more than 10,000 service personnel and main battle armaments, including aircraft, artillery and armored vehicles of various models.
Chinese Minister of National Defense Wei Fenghe and his Russian counterpart Sergei Shoigu observed the exercise and held talks later in the day.
Wei said that the Chinese and Russian armed forces have supported each other in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, demonstrating the high-level development of relations between the two militaries.
The two militaries should enhance strategic coordination and comprehensive and practical cooperation, so as to make greater contributions to the building of a community with a shared future for humanity, and safeguarding world peace and stability, Wei said.
Russia is willing to enhance strategic communication with China, deepen cooperation in areas such as counterterrorism and work together to safeguard regional peace and stability, Shoigu said.
The two ministers also observed the signing of cooperation documents.
They announced the conclusion of the exercise in the afternoon of the day.
The exercise was the first joint military exercise held in China since the COVID-19 outbreak.
By Pepe Escobar: The Saker Blog and cross-posted at the Unz Review.
The first Taliban press conference after this weekend’s Saigon moment geopolitical earthquake, conducted by spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, was in itself a game-changer.
The contrast could not be starker with those rambling pressers at the Taliban embassy in Islamabad after 9/11 and before the start of the American bombing – proving this is an entirely new political animal.
Yet some things never change. English translations remain atrocious.
Here is a good summary of the key Taliban statements, and
– No problem for women to get education all the way to college, and to continue to work. They just need to wear the hijab (like in Qatar or Iran). No need to wear a burqa. The Taliban insists, “all women’s rights will be guaranteed within the limits of Islamic law.”
– The Islamic Emirate “does not threaten anyone” and will not treat anyone as enemies. Crucially, revenge – an essential plank of the Pashtunwali code – will be abandoned, and that’s unprecedented. There will be a general amnesty – including people who worked for the former NATO-aligned system. Translators, for instance, won’t be harassed, and don’t need to leave the country.
– Security of foreign embassies and international organizations “is a priority.” Taliban special security forces will protect both those leaving Afghanistan and those who remain.
– A strong inclusive Islamic government will be formed. “Inclusive” is code for the participation of women and Shi’ites.
– Foreign media will continue to work undisturbed. The Taliban government will allow public criticism and debate. But “freedom of speech in Afghanistan must be in line with Islamic values.”
– The Islamic Emirate of Taliban wants recognition from the “international community” – code for NATO. The overwhelming majority of Eurasia and the Global South will recognize it anyway. It’s essential to note, for example, the closer integration of the expanding SCO – Iran is about to become a full member, Afghanistan is an observer – with ASEAN: the absolute majority of Asia will not shun the Taliban.
For the record, they also stated that the Taliban took all of Afghanistan in only 11 days: that’s pretty accurate. They stressed “very good relations with Pakistan, Russia and China.” Yet the Taliban don’t have formal allies and are not part of any military-political bloc. They definitely “won’t allow Afghanistan to become a safe haven for international terrorists”. That’s code for ISIS/Daesh.
On the key issue of opium/heroin: the Taliban will ban their production. So, for all practical purposes, the CIA heroin rat line is dead.
As eyebrow raising as these statements may be, the Taliban did not even get into detail on economic/infrastructure development deals – as they will need a lot of new industries, new jobs and improved Eurasian-wide trade relations. That will be announced later.
The go-to Russian guy
Sharp US observers are remarking, half in jest, that the Taliban in only one sitting answered more real questions from US media than POTUS since January.
What this first press conference reveals is how the Taliban are fast absorbing essential P.R. and media lessons from Moscow and Beijing, emphasizing ethnic harmony, the role of women, the role of diplomacy, and deftly defusing in a single move all the hysteria raging across NATOstan.
The next bombshell step in the P.R. wars will be to cut off the lethal, evidence-free Taliban-9/11 connection; afterwards the “terrorist organization” label will disappear, and the Taliban as a political movement will be fully legitimized.
Moscow and Beijing are meticulously stage-managing the Taliban reinsertion in regional and global geopolitics. This means that ultimately the SCO is stage-managing the whole process, applying a consensus reached after a series of ministerial and leaders meetings, leading to a very important summit next month in Dushanbe.
The key player the Taliban are talking to is Zamir Kabulov, Russia’s special presidential envoy for Afghanistan. In yet another debunking of NATOstan narrative, Kabulov confirmed, for instance, “we see no direct threat to our allies in Central Asia. There are no facts proving otherwise.”
The Beltway will be stunned to learn that Zabulov has also revealed, “we have long been in talks with the Taliban on the prospects for development after their capture of power and they have repeatedly confirmed that they have no extraterritorial ambition, they learned the lessons of 2000.” These contacts were established “over the past 7 years.”
Zabulov reveals plenty of nuggets when it comes to Taliban diplomacy: “If we compare the negotiability of colleagues and partners, the Taliban have long seemed to me much more negotiable than the puppet Kabul government. We proceed from the premise that the agreements must be implemented. So far, with regard to the security of the embassy and the security of our allies in Central Asia, the Taliban have respected the agreements.”
Faithful to its adherence to international law, and not the “rules-based international order”, Moscow is always keen to emphasize the responsibility of the UN Security Council: “We must make sure that the new government is ready to behave conditionally, as we say, in a civilized manner. That’s when this point of view becomes common to all, then the procedure [of removing the qualification of the Taliban as a terrorist organization] will begin.”
So while the US/EU/NATO flee Kabul in spasms of self-inflicted panic, Moscow practices – what else – diplomacy. Zabulov: “That we have prepared the ground for a conversation with the new government in Afghanistan in advance is an asset of Russian foreign policy.”
Dmitry Zhirnov, Russia’s ambassador to Afghanistan, is working overtime with the Taliban. He met a senior Taliban security official yesterday. The meeting was “positive, constructive…The Taliban movement has the most friendly; the best policy towards Russia… He arrived alone in one vehicle, with no guards.”
Both Moscow and Beijing have no illusions that the West is already deploying Hybrid War tactics to discredit and destabilize a government that isn’t even formed and hasn’t even started working. No wonder Chinese media is describing Washington as a “strategic rogue.”
What matters is that Russia-China are way ahead of the curve, cultivating parallel inside tracks of diplomatic dialogue with the Taliban. It’s always crucial to remember that Russia harbors 20 million Muslims, and China at least 35 million. These will be called to support the immense project of Afghan reconstruction – and full Eurasia reintegration.
The Chinese saw it coming
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi saw it coming weeks ago. And that explains the meeting in Tianjin in late July, when he hosted a high-level Taliban delegation, led by Mullah Baradar, de facto conferring them total political legitimacy. Beijing already knew the Saigon moment was inevitable. Thus the statement stressing China expected to “play an important role in the process of peaceful reconciliation and reconstruction in Afghanistan”.
What this means in practice is China will be a partner of Afghanistan on infrastructure investment, via Pakistan, incorporating it into an expanded China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) bound to diversify connectivity channels with Central Asia. The New Silk Road corridor from Xinjiang to the port of Gwadar in the Arabian Sea will branch out: the first graphic illustration is Chinese construction of the ultra-strategic Peshawar-Kabul highway.
The Chinese are also building a major road across the geologically spectacular, deserted Wakhan corridor from western Xinjiang all the way to Badakhshan province, which incidentally, is now under total Taliban control.
The trade off is quite straightforward: the Taliban should allow no safe haven for the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), and no interference in Xinjiang.
The overall trade/security combo looks like a certified win-win. And we’re not even talking about future deals allowing China to exploit Afghanistan’s immense mineral wealth.
Once again, the Big Picture reads like the Russia-China double helix, connected to all the “stans” as well as Pakistan, drawing a comprehensive game plan/road map for Afghanistan. In their multiple contacts with both Russians and Chinese, the Taliban seem to have totally understood how to profit from their role in the New Great Game.
The extended New Axis of Evil
Imperial Hybrid War tactics to counteract the scenario are inevitable. Take the first proclamation of a Northern Alliance “resistance”, in theory led by Ahmad Masoud, the son of the legendary Lion of the Panjshir killed by al-Qaeda two days before 9/11.
I met Masoud father – an icon. Afghan insider info on Masoud son is not exactly flattering. Yet he’s already a darling of woke Europeans, complete with a glamour pose for AFP, an impromptu visit in the Panjshir by professional philosopher swindler Bernard-Henri Levy, and the release of a manifesto of sorts published in several European newspapers, exhibiting all the catchphrases: “tyranny”, “slavery”, “vendetta”, “martyred nation”, “Kabul screams”, “nation in chains”, etc.
The whole set up smells like a “son of Shah” [of Iran] gambit. Masoud son and his mini-militia are completely surrounded in the Panjshir mountains and can’t be de facto effective even when it comes to regimenting the under 25s, two-thirds of the Afghan population, whose main worry is to find real jobs in a nascent real economy.
Woke NATOstan “analyses” of Taliban Afghanistan don’t even qualify as irrelevant, insisting that Afghanistan is not strategic and even lost its tactical importance for NATO. It’s a sorry spectacle illustrating how Europe is hopelessly behind the curve, drenched in trademark neo-colonialism of the White Man’s Burden variety as it dismisses a land dominated by clans and tribes.
Expect China to be one of the first powers to formally recognize the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, alongside Turkey and, later on, Russia. I have already alluded to the coming of a New Axis of Evil: Pakistan-Taliban-China. The axis will inevitably be extended to Russia-Iran. So what? Ask Mullah Baradar: he couldn’t care less.
Now, let's focus on China, as China will play a major role in this region.
Sitrep : Here comes China : Military Drills, Extortion, the ‘Religious Freedom Balkanization’ Plan for China
The main news of the day is the Biden administration’s effort to sell 40 155mm M109A6 Medium Self-Propelled Howitzer artillery systems, 1,698 precision guidance kits for munitions, spares, training, ground stations and upgrades for previous generation of howitzers, to the island of Taiwan in a deal worth up to $750 million. China is, to say the least, livid.
US ‘large-scale’ military exercises cannot scare China, Russia
The US has begun two “large-scale” military exercises. The first is a joint Indo-Pacific military exercise led by the US Indo-Pacific Command with the participation of Japan, Australia and the UK. The other is the “Large-Scale Exercise 2021” held by US Navy around the world and is reportedly the largest naval exercise since 1981. A US military scholar told media that it is intended to demonstrate to China and Russia that US naval forces can simultaneously meet challenges in the Black Sea, Eastern Mediterranean, South China Sea and East China Sea.
Chinese, Russian militaries to hold joint drill in NW China
YINCHUAN — A joint military exercise by the Chinese and Russian armies will be held from Aug. 9 to 13 at a training base of the People’s Liberation Army in northwest China’s Ningxia Hui autonomous region.
The exercise, named ZAPAD/INTERACTION-2021, is the first joint military exercise held inside China since the COVID-19 outbreak, according to the exercise’s leading group.
While we are right at the end of the Tokyo Olympics, the force is strong for canceling or otherwise interfering with the upcoming Beijing 2022 Games.
This is what Radio Free Asia (and people should recognize that for what it is), reports, and this is clearly within the human rights wars.
2021-07-27 — The International Olympic Committee on Tuesday said it had to “remain neutral” on global political issues in response to a request from the U.S. Congressional commission that asked it to postpone and relocate the 2022 Beijing Winter Games if China does not end its human rights abuses against Muslim Uyghurs in its Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
The reply came in response to a letter that the bipartisan U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) sent to IOC president Thomas Bach. The commission made the letter public on July 23.”
Despite these efforts to do something to China, anything, before the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese are keeping cool: “Off the field, observers noted that the success of the Tokyo Olympics under huge pressure is a desperately needed inspiration for the world. Tokyo’s experience in carrying out a major international event under such circumstances sets an example for next year’s Beijing Winter Olympics, experts said. ”
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.
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.
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.”
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…
Amazing!
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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].
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.”
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
The Chinese work together.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.”
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
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...
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.
Let’s not forget the Amazing HST that has revolutionized China, and is now changing all of Asia…
Video of Chinese HST. Good watch.
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 it’s not a small task with the pervasive anti-China propaganda.
Why ? because the BRI will decrease poverty, will open perspectives, will connect lands & seas, will create bonds between nations, will provoke many occasions to work together and learn from each other personally, will boost education (technical & philosophical).
.
Yes, capitalists & upper class people (Americans, Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Europeans, Japanese, Indians, Pakistanis, Koreans, Africans, Latin Americans, Down Under-ians etc.) will profit more, so what ?! They got the money and the organization ! Let’s be realistic !
.
A bit of Real Politik, please, as Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putin said to Angela Merkel at the occasion of her valedictory visit to him. If this project, which is supposed to be finished in 2049, (for the 100th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China) can achieve only 50 % of its potential, the World will not be a paradise but it will be a much much better place because true, physical development will be possible for so many people on Earth. Imagine it as a Marshall Plan to the square.
True development means first and foremost public utilities and infrastructures (clean water, power grids, roads & bridges, schools buildings etc.). I think it was Lenin who said that the Bolshevik Revolution is the power of the Soviets plus the electrification of Russia.
According to an article by MK Bhadrakumar, a former Indian diplomat, the total amount of money injected in the BRI projects to now is in the order of 4 trillions, with a “t” !
Imagine the 2.2 trillions wasted in Afghanistan and the 5.7 trillions lost in Irak channeled to infrastructural, health & educational (all levels) improvements in the USA !
China became Europe’s first commercial partner this year with exchanges worth almost one trillion, with a “t”.
Speaking of Europe, Yanis Varoufakis, former Greek Finance minister can testify to the unexpected and respectful Chinese interventions in the so-called Greek crisis within the framework of the Belt & Road Initiative.
It is obvious that we need to be aware of the ecological dimension and many industrial projects were utterly careless for our natural environment but the Climate Change narrative and Green narrative are fabrications to brainwash in order not to allow true and respectful of nature development. Watch Professor William Happer’s video or for those speaking French, François Gervais’s videos.
As Vijay Prashad said rightly, in the mind of the Crusaders, most of the Planet are pools of slaves and microscopic pockets of house niggers/ching-chongs/wogs/snow white house niggers (if you want a nicer, politically correct ,acceptable & respectful expression:compradore bourgeoisie) for them to use & abuse so they can live the high life. Of course, a global project for true and solid development like the Belt & Road Initiative
(development of the mind & true industrialization)
is absolutely anathema to them.
.
What is happening now in the West is the slow ( maybe not so slow) motion of the plutocrats to crush the offspring of the middle class created post 1945 because even the crumbs they “gave” your parents cannot be “given” to you anymore since new poles of power re-emerged, depriving them (relatively for now but the tendency will increase with time) of guaranteed long term slave laborers and cheap natural resources so they want to “give” even less here because in THEIR SYSTEM, the profits are less.
.
In technical words, that’s the system of empire or the British system (aka closed paradigm) the eternal foe of the open paradigm or the American System of Physical Economy (and true development) by Henry Charles Carey (1793-1879) who was also the economic adviser to President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
I want to remind everyone of Jeff’s 6 E s describing the PBC’s (Psychopathic Barbarian Crusaders) usual modus operandi : Extortion, Extraction, Expropriation, Enslavement, Evangelization & Extermination.
I would like to remind everyone a conversation between Roman historian Tacitus (56-c.120) and his father-in-law, the general Agricola (40-93). Agricola was at the time of the chat governor of the province of Britain, he was looking in the direction of Ireland and confided to his son-in-law his wish to conquer it.
.
Tacitus replied it would be a loss for the empire since those barbarians are not even fit to be trained as slaves. Agricola said that Tacitus was naive because to leave a pocket of freedom is a danger for Rome, it would give a small hope to the subjugated people. The English oligarchy learned from the “right” people !
Exploitation & Intimidation form an eternal pair.
.
But in an open paradigm, that mentality of false scarcity for justifying oligarchical control will not be accepted.
.
For those who can’t stand Lyndon Larouche (1922-2019), be informed that he was a genius and a philosopher king, without a crown like Confucius (551 BCE-479 BCE) and Plato (427 BCE- 347 BCE). The mere fact that the oligarchy felt the need to fabricate a sordid story of stolen documents to convict him to years of hard labor speaks volumes.
.
He also predicted the 2008 crisis years in advance, not a small feat since most of the garden variety economists were clueless, I don’t even think they were bought off, I would grant them too much brain by adhering to such a hypothesis… Larouche might sound a little bit granddiloquent in certain speeches but it was the natural expression of a man confident in the quality of his mind because he truly developed it.
.
Last but not least, he insisted on exposing the epistemological warfare, denouncing the dionysian sex, drug and rock’nd roll “culture”, skillfully and surreptitiously downgrading the possibilities of the human mind, making people easier to corral.
.
The Frankfurt school, the ‘societal’ changes, the ‘ecological’ battles were all used as red herrings to the true socio-economic struggles. Mai 68 in France was a color revolution to get rid of Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970), try to explain that to a Parigot bobo completely brainwashed by the contemporary doxa !
.
His analysis of Universal History is outstanding. Webster Tarpley, a brilliant historian having writtten ” 9-11, terror made in USA ” has been part of his organization.
.
For those having difficulties to watch “The Revival of the American System with Chinese Characteristics”, I suggest 12 sessions of 5 minutes. I’m not being sarcastic, sometimes simplistic means can give great results…
To recapitulate, if you are not filthily rich or do not wield formidable power (meaning you don’t have money to give or positions to offer) but are willing to devote some time in order to be useful for the cause of an advanced & refined mankind :
.
FOCUS ON PROMOTING THE BELT & ROAD INITIATIVE AND TRY TO EDUCATE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE ON EPISTEMOLOGICAL WARFARE
.
Which is (the worst form of slavery is the mental form, please remember Plato’s allegory of the Cave and don’t forget one of the six E s is Evangelization) because both are powerful multi-generational (not only do we need to understand Real Politik but also that a great Endeavor will take the efforts of many people over more than one generation) tools to escape the clutch of the imperial aka British system.
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.
Do not mess with the Chinese.
Now, a few years older. Here’s a video of Chinese “cub scouts” (Optional in Elementary School)…
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.
Chinese mandatory Middle School Training.
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.
Chinese Paramilitary.
Next video shows some of what China’s professional warrior class can do. China is hardly a “peasant army fielding old AK-47 clones”.
China’s professional warriors.
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!
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.
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.
Proud transgender American military.
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.
China is a serious serious nation that does not play.
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.
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.
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…
Yup, released in the USA months before the bio-weapons attack on China.
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!
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.
America is so frustrating right now.
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…
America is playing Chess.
…the Chinese see this, and are playing Go. And they are moving their pieces in a very complex and intricate manner.
The Chinese play Go.
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 falling apart at the seams.
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.
America is a mess.
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?
No hope in America these days.
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.
Hate-hate-hate-China
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.
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!
Typical Chinese housewife.
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?
Life in the Middle East.
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.
Chinese little girls.
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”.
Aplan, 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 $4trillion
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 ofthe 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.
The Chinese play Mahjong.
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…
America is actually 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.
China has allied with China with the tightest relationship ever, and the agreements and the joint efforts are simply astounding.
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…
New Orleans
And this video of New York City. This is the largest and most prized American cities. It is “the shining city on the hill”.
New York City
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.
Boston, Massachusetts
And this video. I believe that it is Chicago, Illinois. Mob rule. Very little support of the government. Hatred abounds. Crime is normal.
Chicago, Il.
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.
New York 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.
Game of Tik-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.
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
Bloomberg reported that China’s zero-tolerance strategy of COVID-19 “risks leaving it isolated for years.” But on Tuesday, statistics published by China’s Ministry of Commerce showed that China’s foreign trade in the first seven months of this year reached a high compared with the same period last year, and last year saw a surge in China’s foreign trade. This is a slap on the face of the “China isolation” theory.
China did not close its door due to the pandemic. Economic exchanges are the core of the current international exchanges, which is proven by the growth in China’s foreign trade. As for people-to-people exchanges, there has been a major decline at the global level. China has done a good job in controlling its borders and explored a set of methods to achieve safe international exchanges during the pandemic. This set of methods is worth being improved and is expected to be valued by other countries.
China will host the Winter Olympic Games six months from now. It could be another peak of the infections of coronavirus. Beijing is determined to host the Games well – it will not allow large-scale infections in Chinese society, and ensure the pandemic does not spread among delegates from all the participating countries. We believe given China’s tight prevention and control, athletes for the Games will not fear coming to China.
US media outlets, represented by Bloomberg, have been holding a twisted mentality toward China’s anti-virus achievements. China has avoided serious losses of life, and its economic recovery is leading the world. They pretend not seeing these and are reluctant to admit them. Not long ago, Bloomberg released a wired COVID Resilience Ranking that put the US on top of the list, which has become the laughing stock of the international community.
China is capable of carrying on the dynamic zero-case route. With the development of vaccines, strong mobilization and organization ability has turned into welfare for the Chinese people. Many Western countries also want to minimize the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic – zero-case is better. The US once suspended flights with all European countries, and Australia has recently deployed defense force to help enforce lockdown. But they cannot reach the status of zero-case. Thus, it was a forced choice of them to downplay the pandemic.
Although the US has registered over 617,000 coronavirus deaths so far, the country still undertook a recent rebound in daily new cases – a daily average of over 124,000 new cases were reported in the past week. If Washington has the opportunity to put the number of new case down to zero, it will inject all efforts to tout about it.
We can hardly rule out the possibility that some American elites are jealous of China’s capability of having dynamic zero cases. They’d rather see China toppled by the COVID-19 epidemic just like the US. Then they would get a chance to clamor that China’s vaccines are not effective. Anyway, they don’t want to see any good from China. And when China does good, they will spare no efforts to mislead the international community to neutralize the influence of China’s success in fighting the virus.
China is a country that seeks truth from facts. The success of its dynamic zero-case policy has laid a solid foundation for China’s fight against the epidemic in the future. With the high rate of vaccination and a better preparation of the medical service system, China will have the ability to adjust its defensive strategy based on future needs. Many people have taken for granted that China fears getting back in touch with the rest of world because Chinese society has been accustomed to zero cases.
What China will do is to adapt to the world’s new normal due to an increase of global interactions while ensuring its domestic line of defense is robust enough against imported infections. The US has done nothing on this. But China has accumulated abundant experiences in the past year and beyond. Chinese people have managed what seemed impossible for Americans, and Chinese people will continue doing so.
Instead, it is hard to predict if the US – a super spreader of the pandemic – will face up to external pressure to hinder it from opening to the world. If the same number of Chinese and American people are traveling in a third country where the epidemic is mild, which group is more concerning to local people? Fortunately, the recent summer and winter Olympic games are not held in the US, or else how many countries dare to send delegations?
As China and the US follow their respective paths – taking into account their respective adjustment capabilities – time will tell which country will open up to the world more smoothly with better overall results. Time is neutral and its answer will be unbiased.
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.
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.
Be the Rufus.
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.
A Rufus saves others.
That’s it really.
You must be the Rufus.
Be part of something bigger than yourself. 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.
A Rufus is helpful.
Be the Rufus!
When an emergency happens, you take part and be helpful.
Be the Rufus.
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.
A Rufus does what ever it takes.
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.
Just be helpful.
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!
Save the baby!
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.
A Rufus is there.
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.
Be the helpful Rufus.
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 contributes.
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.
Help others. Be the Rufus.
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.
A Rufus makes a difference.
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.
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.
You can make the world a better place.
..
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.
Be part of your community.
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.
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.
Proud American soldiers to fight communism for liberty, freedom and democracy!
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…
Dr. Strangelove’s Spoon Benders: How the U.S. Military Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Cynthia Chung is the President of the Rising Tide Foundation and a writer at Strategic Culture Foundation, consider supporting her work by making a donation and subscribing to her substack page for free.
“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…
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,”
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.”
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.
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.
Air Force General Jack Ripper
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 monstrouslyconceived and dangerouscommunist plot we have ever had to face.
-GeneralJack D. Ripper
Gen. Jack 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.
Gen. Jack Ripper is absolutely insane. Much like Washington DC is today.
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.
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.
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.”
American military are strongly influenced by Washington DC politics.
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.
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.
On Sept 11, 2001, Ziad Jarrah took control of the United Airlines flight 93 as part of the orchestrated 9/11 terrorist attack. Trained by the United States military.
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.
Dr. Strangeglove.
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.
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..
Here is an uber lucid article by Christopher Black on what the PBCs (Psychopathic Barbarian Crusaders) truly want.
.
I like that. Psychopathic Barbarian Crusaders. Sounds so apt.
I’m aware that I might be unfair because the vast majority of Western people don’t qualify to be PBCs (Psychopathic Barbarian Crusaders)…
.
…but unhappily, most of the western movers & shakers (either in a leadership position or being cowardly and ignorant sidekicks) qualify for such an inglorious denomination.
.
We are at a crossroad. Everyone reading this should be perfectly aware of the geopolitical Damocles’ sword hanging on us all.
.
It’s impossible for anyone to be fully disconnected from geopolitics, the one guided by philosophy and ethics but also the Real Politik one because living in a fantasy world (un monde de bisounours, as they say in France or un monde de câlinours as said in Quebec) never helped anybody living on Earth.
.
But having principles and at the same time being aware of the ruts of the world is maybe the Middle Way.
.
At least it might help us deal with the events that unfold due to the madness of men.
.
The madness of men.
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.
Battle for Seoul.
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.
The Japanese worked with the American military to take over Korea and launch towards China for eventual capture and domination.
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.
…
The Chinese will never forget what the Japanese did to China. They have never forgiven.
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.
The Chinese have a long and bitter memory of the Japanese invasion.
The Chinese have a long and bitter memory of the Japanese invasion.
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.
American neocons pushing for war.
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.
British aircraft carrier, Queen Elizabeth.
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?
American neocons.
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.
Is Japan an independent nation, or a proxy vassal of the United States?
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.
…
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…
Russian troops training in XinJiang and then eating fine Uighur food.
And then here’s another.
Russian and Chinese commanders address their troops.
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.
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.
…
Chinese DF-41 armed with ten (x10) nuclear warheads well within the range of Japan. One missile launch of these independently directed, AI controlled, hypervelocity MIRV’s will completely destroy ten of Japan’s largest cities, and if not send Japan into the Iron age, will thrash it’s economy to zero.
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.
America Is Betting Big on the Second Island Chain | RANDSep 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
Do not negotiate with the United States.
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.”
Type-003.
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.
Chinese boy scouts 1
And, here’s another…
Chinese boy scouts 2
Still not convinced…
Scot training focuses on group communication, working together as a team, and mastery of fighting skills.
How about this one…
Chinese scouts are coed.
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.
There’s billions of Chinese. Don’t piss them off!
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.
China is a serious, serious nation that does not play.
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.
Chinese soldiers.
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?
Cute robot hand-grenades.
.
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.
Chinese silo-based, liquid fueled, MIRV, ICBM’s the DF-5B and DF-5C.
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.
DF-31 mobile solid fueled ICBM.
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.
DF-41 MIRV ICBM. This is the mainstay of the Chinese ICBM fleet. All have ten nuclear warheads, can reach anywhere in the globe, and can be launched in minutes.
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.
Gansu province in China.
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.
Chinese nuclear weapons as understood by the West.
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
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!
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.
[Incidentally, the heart of any liquid-fuel rocket engine is a turbopump, which is basically a gas turbine engine. It has a burner, where some amount of the fuel and oxidizer are burned, supplying gas to drive a turbine wheel or wheels, which then drive two ‘compressor’ pumps [also wheels], that pressurize the oxidizer and fuel, which is then delivered to the main combustion chamber under great pressure.]
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!
China’s hyper-velocity missile.
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…
Taiwanese girl comes to China for the first time. These are 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…
America in 2021.
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…
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.
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.
…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 beenvastly expanding their cooperation since 2014. Their closealliance is based oneconomic and geopolitical considerations. While it is mutually beneficial, it alsohas its limitations. However, in the mid-term, both China and Russia appear tobewilling 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 ChinaandRussia’s cybersecurity relationship is not dependent on their ties with each other, but is defined in relation to the US. Just as China and Russiaadvocate for multipolarity to challenge the perceived US’s unipolarworld view and values, their cooperation in cyberspacedemonstratesthe 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 · OnJune 30, ChinaandtheUkraine signed a major agreement regarding the financing and construction of transport infrastructure. China-Ukrainerelations have improved considerably since the blocking by Kyiv of a Chinese takeover of the Motor Sich company in March 2021.
-AnewChina-Ukrainepartnership - 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.
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 inRussia and assembled in China.A special engineering center will be created inRussiatoundertake 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.
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.
I think that is important to address the issue of Taiwan and China. I believe that I need to do so because the USA is trying to start a war there. The drums for war are beating loudly. Really, really loudly. What the HELL is going on?
America is a military empire and it needs a war to exist. It’s always wanted one, two or three, as well well know. Right now the USA is involved in eight simultaneous wars, which could be reduced to seven if the (so called Afghanistan pull out) actually occurs.
But yeah. All evidence is that the United States is “throwing it’s weight around” trying to provoke a mighty World War.
(To) throw one's weightaround, to To use one’s wealth or standing to manipulateothers; to act officiously.
This expression dates from the early twentiethcenturyand uses weight in the sense of “authority.” John P. Marquand had it in H. M. Pulham, Esquire (1941): “Bo-jo was a bastard, a big bastard.
-Throwweightaround - Idiomsby The FreeDictionary
All you need to do is read the slant of the “news” out of America. Such as this piece of reprehensible trash…
I will admit that the anti-China articles have improved in their “sneakiness”. All you need to do is read the text to pull out the “boiler plate” anti-China screeds. Like this one from my Tech channels…
And the source for all this information? Why it’s the “United States Government”. That’s it. No other information on names or actual validation channels. Jeeze!
So the USA is busily running their anti-China screed, and they are still poking the Panda. But will it result in a hot war over Taiwan?
We should look into this. Here we tie together some most excellent articles and then weave them together for a better, more comprehensive picture about what is going on, why and who the culprits are.
We will start with this, it is one of the better articles on the subject. Edited to fit in this venue and all credit to the author.
We are witnessing the fourth Cross-Strait Crises. Chinese and American armed forces are undertaking dangerous, spectacular and threatening show of military might. What makes the present crisis different from the previous ones is the fact that it happened during and after the mutual cold-war declaration by Washington and Beijing in Anchorage, Alaska on March 18-19, 2021
The world is wondering how far this military show will go. Many are afraid of a shooting war involving China, Taiwan and the U.S. Indeed, many are even afraid of the possibility of the third world war which will kill us all.
However, I do not share such pessimistic views. My view is that the inter-China cold war is likely to remain cold, not hot, because none of the three actors involved in the conflict – two Chinas and the U.S.- will gain from the shooting war.
The Sino-American shooting war – if there will be one – will be ignited somewhere else.
Summary
My argument may be summarized as follows.
First, the U.S. does not want the inter-China hot war, because through its ambiguous Taiwan policy, it can continue to sell weapons to Taiwan and, at the same time, keep Taiwan as the primary outpost of its China containment policy.
Second, China is not eager to declare a hot war with Taiwan, because Taiwan has not provided the reasons for China’s Taiwan invasion.
What would force an invasion of Taiwan by China?
There are four reasons for China’s Taiwan invasion including [1] the declaration of Taiwan independence, [2] internal turmoil inside of Taiwan, [2] military alliance with another country, [3] acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and [4] negotiations under the violation of the 1992 Consensus for “one-China”.
None of these conditions are present.
Therefore, China has no reason to invade Taiwan.
Taiwan does not want a war with China
Third, Taiwan does not want the hot war with China for the reason that it will be most likely defeated. As well as the cost of such defeat will be too high in terms of economic development and the loss of its identity. In fact, if and when China wins, it is extremely likely that both of the two China’s will be united under the banner of PRC.
The U.S. does not want inter-China hot War
To understand Washington’s role in the inter-China conflict, it is important to understand its Taiwan policy.
Washington’s Taiwan policy is based on [1] the three joint communiqués, [2] the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 (TRA) and [3] the Six Assurances imposed by Ronald Reagan in 1982.
The followings are the contents of the three Communiqués, TRA and the Six Assurances.
The First China-U.S. Communiqué (28 February 1972)
The U.S. Government acknowledges (not accept or recognize) that all Chinese in either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but One China
Taiwan is a part of China
The U.S. Government does not challenge this position
. It reaffirms its interest in peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by Chinese themselves
With this prospect in mind, it affirms its ultimate objective of the withdrawal of all the U.S. forces and military installations from Taiwan.
The Second China-U.S. Communiqué (January 1, 1979)
Neither should seek hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region or any other region of the world.
Each is opposed to efforts by any other country or group of countries to establish such hegemony
The government of the USA acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and that Taiwan is part of China
PRC is the sole legal government of China
Third China-U.S. Communiqué (August 17, 1982)
The U.S. Government attaches great importance to its relation with China.
It has no intention of infringing on Chinese sovereignty and territorial integrity or interfering in China’s internal affairs or pursuing a policy of ‘two Chinas’ or ‘one China, one Taiwan.’
The U.S. Government states that it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan
Its arms sale to Taiwan will not exceed, either in qualitative or in quantitative terms the level of those supplied in recent years
It intends to reduce gradually its sales of arms to Taiwan, leading over a period of time to a final solution.
The U.S. Taiwan policy cannot be changed by the president and requires the consent of the Congress.
The Taiwan Relations Act (enacted by the U.S. Congress on April 10, 1979)
The principal contents of the Act is in Section 2 of the Act
Taiwan is treated as a country, a nation or a state as sub sovereign nation
Informal diplomatic relations are carried out by the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT)
The U.S. Government normalizes its diplomatic relations with PRC (Beijing) under the condition that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.
Any efforts to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means including by boycotts, or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific are grave concern to the U.S.
The Sino (Taiwan)-U.S. Mutual Defence Treaty is terminated.
The U.S. Government does not intervene in case of invasion by People’s Republic of China (PRC)
The U.S. Government provides arms of defensive character and maintains the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan
The decision related to the quantity and the quality of defence articles and services is determined by the Congress and the president.
The Six Assurances
The administration of Ronald Reagan unilaterally added in 1982 “Six Assurances” to the TRA and this has become the mains part of the U.S. Taiwan policy
The U.S. Government has not agreed to set a date of the termination of its arms sale to Taiwan.
The U.S. Government has not agreed to consult with PRC (China) or ROC (Taiwan) for arms sales to Taiwan.
The U.S. Government does not perform the mediation role between ROC and PRC
The U.S. Government has not agreed to revise the TRA
The U.S. Government has not revised its position regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan
The U.S. Government will not exercise pressure on Taiwan to enter into negotiation with PRC.
The positive aspect of Washington’s Taiwan policy is the termination of the bloody civil war between ROC and PRC which caused the two cross-strait crises (1954 and 1958); the civil war lasted until 1979.
But, the end of the inter-China civil war was also desirable for Washington as well, because Washington badly needed China to counter the aggressive assertiveness of the Soviet Union in Asia.
So, Washington and Beijing were strange bed fellows with different dreams. Another possible reason for the U.S. initiative to end the inter-China civil war was the fear of Beijing’s victory over Taipei, which means the loss of a lucrative American arms market and reliable outpost of China containment strategy.
On the other hand, Washington’s Taiwan policy is characterized by the amazing ambiguity of Washington’s perception of the cross-strait problems and tactics which was most likely designed to maximize the American interests at the expense of China’s interests.
What comes out of the three communiqués, the TRA and the six assurances may be summarized in terms of the issue of regional hegemony, the legal status of Taiwan and the American arms sales.
Regional ambiguity
In the second communiqué of 1979, there are items preventing China from becoming a hegemonic power in the region. Neither the U.S. nor China should seek for hegemonic power in Asia. But the U.S was already the hegemonic power there.
The second feature of Washington’s Taiwan policy is its contradictory and ambiguous position regarding the legal status of Taiwan.
In the joint communiqués, the U.S. acknowledges that China is one and Taiwan is a part of China and that Beijing is the sole legal government of China. But this should mean that since Taiwan is a part of China, Beijing should also govern Taiwan.
But, in the Taiwan Relations Act, Taiwan is given the status of a de facto sovereign country.
China can argue that Washington did not respect the contents of the joint communiqués. But Washington can say this: “We have never accepted one-China regime, we said we acknowledged the regime”. Here, we see the strategic political ambiguity of Washington.
In fact, in the TRA, it says that Taiwan is treated as a nation of sub sovereignty. The U.S. has established de facto diplomatic relations with Taiwan conducted through the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT).
Here, Washington’s position regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan is not clear. The hidden purpose of the U.S. could be to make the sovereignty issue ambiguous so that it can change its position in function of needs.
Washington’s Arms Sales to Taiwan
Now, as for the issues of arms sales to Taiwan, the U. S. is even more ambiguous.
In the third communiqué, the U.S. says that it has no long-run plan of arms sales to Taiwan.
Yet in the same communiqué, the U.S. says that it will reduce arms sales, which contradicts each other.
In the TRA, the Sino (ROC)-U.S. defence Treaty is terminated.
This is a very, very important point. One that is purposely being left out of all media communication originating out of the United States. The TRA ended Taiwan as a US Protectorate.
Therefore, Washington should not intervene militarily if and when Taiwan is in armed conflict with Beijing.
But, already, in media, the US intervention in case of PRC’s Taiwan invasion is openly discussed.
One wonders what the reliability of the joint communiqués, the TRA and the Six Assurances is. It’s as if the United States simply ignores inconvenient rules, treaties, and agreements that it has signed.
Now, in the Six Assurances, it is written that the U.S. has no date for the ending of its arms sales to Taiwan. The U.S. is not obliged to consult PRC or ROC for its arms sales to Taiwan. So, Washington has absolute freehand in handling the arms sales to Taiwan.
In short, the U.S. Taiwan policy is so confusing and so ambiguous that it has useful flexibility for the sales of arms to Taiwan. The following table shows the pattern of American arms sales to Taiwan.
Table: Washington’s arms sales to Taiwan by U.S. Presidents
The table above allows these observations.
Washington’s arms sales to Taiwan has increased over the years, which is contrary to what the U.S. Government had promised.
The Trump administration spent as much as US$ 4.45 billion per year which represents as much as 30% of Taiwan’s annual defense budget of $15 billion
By and large, the Republican Party sells more than the Democrats.
Washington sells more when the anti-Beijing liberal party of Taiwan, the Democratic and Progressive Parry (DPP) is in power, that is, under the DPP government of Chen Shui-bian (2000-2008) and under the DPP government of Tsai Ying-wen (2016-2021)
This has an important meaning.
Remember that the DPP is the party which seeks independence of Taiwan.
Hence, the data can be interpreted as Washington’s strategy of encouraging the independence movement leading to ROC-PRC tension and more U.S. arms sales to Taiwan.
So the United States is actively encouraging an armed conflict between Taiwan and China. Though everyone realizes that ultimately Taiwan would be absorbed into China as a result of the conflict.
So, Does the USA want a Hot War over the Taiwan strait?
Now, coming back to the question of whether the U.S. wishes hot war over the Taiwan Strait, the answer is that it will not want the hot war.
The USA does not really want a Hot War, even though it is provoking one.
The reason is because, the hot war means the unification of China and Taiwan will no longer be able to play the role of Washington’s primary China-containment outpost and its function of being the lucrative market of American military equipment’s.
Neither PRC (People’s Republic of China) nor ROC (Republic of China-Taiwan) wants the hot War.
Are Taiwan and China enemies as described in the Western media?
When we discuss Taiwan and China, it is important to remember that they once were enemies. This was around fifty years ago.
The army of the ROC was defeated in 1949 and Chiang Kai-sek fled to Taiwan and continued the Republic of China which was created in 1912 by Sun Yat-sen. The civil war between ROC and PRC continued until 1979.
Even though the civil war was terminated, the ROC and PRC relations have not been smooth partly because of the past history and partly because of different political and economic regimes. In other words, there are always the possibilities of hostility in the cross-strait relations.
However, they have established viable relations which have been beneficial to both through political and economic cooperation.
The Risk of full Taiwan Independence from China
Aside from the American and British media harping on the desire for Taiwan to be free of the “oppressive yoke” of the “brutal Communist Dictatorship”, the real truth is something else entirely.
The evolution of the Taiwanese political orientation may be measured in terms of the way in which its presidents consider the legal status of Taiwan vis-à-vis PRC.
The evolution of Taiwanese political leaders’ perceptions of Taipei-Beijing political relations is shown below. By and large, such relations have evolved by the following periods.
The civil war period (1949-1979)
The period of good relations (1979-1998)
The period of hostility (1998-2008)
The resumption of high level dialogue period (2008-2016)
The frozen relation period (2016-2021)
The period of civil war (1949-1979) was characterized by two cross-strait crises and never ending armed conflict between two Chinas.
During the friendly relation period (1979-1998), Deng Xiaoping met frequently the head of the Nationalist Party, Kuomintang (KMT) in order to develop cooperative relations.
President Chiang Ching-kuo (1980-1988) of KMT, son of Chiang Kai-shek, declared the three NOs:
No declaration of independence,
No unification of Chinas and
No use of force between the two Chinas.
On July 9, 1999, President Lee Teng-hui (1988-2000) of KMT defined the ROC-PRC relation as “country to country relations.” So, there is no need for the independence declaration.
However, Lee’s visit to the Cornel University Alumni in 1995 alarmed Beijing and it led to the 1996 show of military might of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) of PRC.
This was, in fact, the third Taiwan Strait crisis.
During the period of hostility (1998-2008), President Chen Shui-bian (2000-2008) of the anti-PRC party, DPP, changed the name of “Chunghwa Post Co.” to “Taiwan Post Co.” He changed also the name of “China Petroleum Corporation” to “Taiwan Petroleum Corporation.”
But, under KMT president Ma Yong-Jeou (2008-2016), the old names came back. This episode shows how Taiwanese people are sensitive about the identity of Taiwan vis-à-vis China of main land.
In 2008, Ma Ying-Jeou of KMT (2008-2016) took over the power and the friendly relations across the Strait were resumed.
The year 2008 was marked by the efforts of PRCs president Hu Jintao to improve the bilateral relations across the Taiwan Strait. On March 26, 2008, he talked to President G.W. Bush, who endorsed the 1992 consensus on “One China”..
President Hu Jintao also met the Chairman of the KMT, Wu Po-hsing, who also accepted the 1992 Consensus.
As for President Ma, he defined the bilateral relations as “One Country on each side” or “two states in the same nation.”
In 2016 began the current period of contention. The power went back to DPP and Tsai Ying-wen became President. Tsai’s perception of Taiwan’s legal status was not more certain than those of other Taiwan presidents.
Her victory has put Beijing in even uncomfortable position. In 2016, Beijing cut all communications with ROC.
But, in the same year, some leaders in Taiwan being aware of the deteriorating cross-strait relations formed a Taiwanese delegation composed of eight magistrates and city mayors went to Beijing to improve the relations.
However, the cross-strait relations were not peaceful. In 2018, PLA conducted military exercises which surely alarmed Taiwan.
In 2019, Xi Jinping reaffirmed his position in favor of “one China, two systems.”
President Tsai Ying-wen refused Xi Jinping’s idea.
To the surprise of the world, in 2020 Tsai Ying-wen won the election again; the world was expecting that she would take more radical position regarding Taiwan’s independence.
True, her victory has encouraged the independence movement in Taiwan and pro-independence political parties and civic organizations asked for a referendum on independence.
However, Tsai maintained her position that since Taiwan is already independent country, there is no need for the declaration of independence.”
To sum up, none of the presidents of the major parties, the KMT and the DPP, opted for the declaration of Taiwan’s independence.
True, there are some pro-independence parties such as The Taiwan Independence Party, the Taiwan Solidarity and the Formosa Alliance, but they have no electoral support.
Thus, the danger of Taiwan’s declaration of independence seems nonexistent and therefore, Beijing has no reason to invade for now.
Taiwan People’s Perception
What has intrigued me is the Taiwanese people’s perceptions regarding Taiwan’s legal or political status. There are four public opinion polls which are meaningful.
In the poll of 2008 by the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) no less than76% of the respondents rejected the idea of “one China, two systems.”
In the 2017 poll by MAC, 85% of the respondents said that the future of Taiwan should be determined by the Taiwanese themselves.
In the 2019 poll by MAC, 75% of the respondents rejected the 1992 Consensus (There is only one China which should be governed by PRC).
In the 2020 poll by the Academia Sinica, one finds very interesting phenomena.
73% of the respondents identified themselves as Taiwanese.
27.5% of them identified themselves as Chinese-Taiwanese
2.4% of them identified themselves as Chinese
52.3% of them would prefer the postponement of the question of Taiwan independence and keep the status quo
35.1% of them prefer immediate independence
5.5% of them would prefer immediate or eventual unification of China.
In the Poll of MAC, 90% of the respondents refused PLA’s military threats.
To sum up, the Taiwanese are eager to greater autonomy, even independence, but they seem to avoid military confrontation by postponing the solution of the independence issue.
In short, Taiwan does not want a shooting war with China.
Economic Cooperation
There is another reason why the ROC-PRC hot war will not take place. It is the cross-strait economic cooperation.
Taiwan has achieved a remarkable success in economic development.
In the 1960s, the per capita GDP was as low as $60. Now, in 2020, its GDP (nominal) was $730 billion USD and the per capita GDP was $32,000. This is, in fact, the miraculous achievements of the Taiwanese people.
The information industries account for 35 % of the country’s industrial production. The semi-conductor producers such as Taiwan Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) and the United Microelectronic Corporation (UMC) are world leaders. Taiwan is the 13th largest producer of steel; its steel products are exported to 130 countries. The most spectacular entrepreneurial performance has been shown by the SMEs accounting for 85% of industrial outputs.
Such achievement has been possible because of the courage, the innovative entrepreneurial spirit, the productivity and, especially the hard work of the Taiwanese.
However, Washington’s economic aid, its imports of Taiwanese products and technology transfer have all contributed. In addition, we should not forget the cooperation between Mainland China and Taiwan.
Under President Chiang Ching-kuo (1978-1988), two important semi-official organizations were was established: the Strait Exchange Foundation (SEF) under ROC’s Mainland Affairs Council and the Association of Relations across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) under PRCs Taiwanese Affairs Office.
These two organizations have been the center of bilateral political and economic cooperation. They have initiated the three links: postal services, transportation and trade.
The Taiwan’s Investment Guidelines and similar measures taken by ROC have led to mutual business investments.
In fact, 40 % of Taiwan’s outbound FDI stock went to Mainland China. Chinese tourists contribute to more than 40% of ROCs tourist industry. The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement of 2010 is another mechanism of the bilateral economic relations.
Above all, Taiwan depends heavily on China for trade. In 2020, the value of Taiwan’s total exports was $ 345 billion of which 29.7% went to China. In the same year, the value of Taiwan’s total imports was $ 286 billion of which 22% came from China.
It is true that the RCO-PRC relations are not peaceful. But these economic relations are beneficial enough to keep the status quo as long as possible.
The conclusion of my analysis is that none of the three actors involved in the cross-strait drama wants shooting war.
China doesn’t
Taiwan doesn’t
The United States doesn’t.
The United States. The U.S. does not want the hot war because it will mean [1] the unification of China, [2] the loss of Taiwan as the primary China-containment outpost and [3] the loss of the lucrative arms market.
Taiwan. Taiwan does not want the shooting war, because it will mean the complete destruction of its economy, and the loss of its autonomy becoming one of the Chinese provinces.
China. China does not risk the hot war because [1] Taiwan prefers the status quo; [2] it has no intention of getting weapons of mass destruction; [3] there is no internal turmoil; [4] it does not seek military alliances.
But the United States wants high stress and tension
However, even without the shooting war, as long as the Sino-U.S. cold war continues, the cross-strait tension will continue.
Washington will sell more military equipment and services and Taiwan will have to play the dangerous role of Washington’s the primary outpost of China containment strategy and that of main buyer of American military weapons.
I wish to add this.
The bilateral conflict between two Chinas like all other major bilateral conflicts is an integral part of Washington’s strategy of global hegemony. One of the most productive components of the American global hegemony is the proxy war, that is, some member country of Washington’s alliances will fight for the U.S.
Japan might be asked to play this role, because Japan is the best qualified for such task; it is a world class military power and it has the ambition of dominating Asia again; to do so, Japan has to destroy China. I hope I am wrong in thinking such an awful thing.
Finally, I would like add this too…
Taiwan is a country which has achieved an amazing economic miracle of which all Chinese should be proud. Taiwan has established viable democracy under very challenging conditions; this is a regime which will surely contribute to the further advancement of China’s socio-political system.
…
Well, perhaps it is the Taiwan oligarchy that is pushing this issue. Not the Taiwanese government, and not the American government. Perhaps it is the oligarchy inside of Taiwan, and the greedy evil neocons in America that is driving up the stress levels in the Taiwan strait.
Because if Taiwan, China and the USA doesn’t want a war, then why are we talking about this?
Twenty years ago, a group of neoconservative think tanks used their power to push for disastrous wars in the Middle East. Now, a new set of think tanks staffed with many of the same experts and funded by Taiwanese money is working hard to convince Americans that there is a new existential threat: China.
At MintPress, we have been at the forefront of exposing how Middle Easterndictatorships and weapons contractors have been funneling money into think tanks and political action committees, keeping up a steady drumbeat for more war and conflict around the world.
Yet one little-discussed nation that punches well above its weight in spending cash in Washington is Taiwan.
By studying Taiwan’s financial reports, MintPress has ascertained that the semi-autonomous island of 23 million people has, in recent years, given out millions of dollars to many of the largest and most influential think tanks in the United States.
This has coincided with a strong upsurge in anti-China rhetoric in Washington, with report after report warning of China’s economic rise and demanding that the U.S. intervene more in China-Taiwan disputes.
These think tanks are filled with prominent figures from both parties and have the ears of the most powerful politicians in Washington.
It is in their offices that specialists draw up papers and incubate ideas that become tomorrow’s policies.
They also churn out experts who appear in agenda-setting media, helping to shape and control the public debate on political and economic issues.
Twenty years ago, a group of neoconservative think tanks like the Project for a New American Century, funded by foreign governments and weapons manufacturers, used their power to push for disastrous wars in the Middle East.
Now, a new set of think tanks, staffed with many of those same experts who provided the intellectual basis for those invasions, is working hard to convince Americans that there is a new existential threat: China.
The Brookings Institute
In 2019, the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States (TECRO) — for all intents and purposes, the Taiwanese embassy — donated between $250,000 and $499,999 to the Brookings Institute, commonly identified as the world’s most influential think tank.
Taiwanese tech companies have also given large sums to the organization.
In turn, Brookings Institute staff like Richard C. Bush (a former member of the National Intelligence Council and a U.S. national intelligence officer for East Asia) vociferously champion the cause of Taiwanese nationalists and routinelycondemn Beijing’s attempts to bring the island more closely under control.
TECRO featured prominently among myriad defense interests on the donor rolls for both the Atlantic Council, left, and Brookings Institute
In mid-April 2021, Brookings held an event called “Taiwan’s quest for security and the good life,” which began with the statement that…
“Taiwan is rightly praised for its democracy. Elections are free, fair, and competitive; civil and political rights are protected.”
...
“most consequential” challenge to the island’s liberty and prosperity is “China’s ambition to end Taiwan’s separate existence.”
According to another organization’s latest financial disclosure, TECRO also gave a six-figure sum to the Atlantic Council, a think tank closely associated with NATO.
The Atlantic Council
It is unclear what the Atlantic Council did with that money, but what is certain is that they gave a senior fellowship to Chang-Ching Tu, an academic employed by the Taiwanese military to teach at the country’s National Defense University.
In turn, Tu authored Atlantic Council reports describing his country as a “champion [of] global democracy,” and stating that “democracy, freedom and human rights are Taiwan’s core values.”
A menacing China, however, is increasing its military threats, so Taiwan must “accelerate its deterrence forces and strengthen its self-defense capabilities.”
Thus he advises that the U.S. must work far more closely with Taiwan’s military, conducting joint exercises and moving towards a more formal military alliance.
In 2020, the U.S. sold $5.9 billion worth of arms to the island, making it the fifth-largest recipient of American weaponry last year.
Other Taiwan-employed academics have chided the West on the pages of the Council’s website for its insufficient zeal in “deter[ring] Chinese aggression” against the island. “A decision by the United States to back down” — wrote Philip Anstrén, a Swedish recipient of a fellowship from the Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs — “could damage the credibility of U.S. defense guarantees and signal that Washington’s will to defend its allies is weak.”
Anstrén also insisted that “Europe’s future is on the line in the Taiwan Strait.” “Western democratic nations have moral obligations vis-à-vis Taiwan,” he added on his blog, “and Western democracies have a duty to ensure that [Taiwan] not only survives but also thrives.”
The reason this is important is that the Atlantic Council is an enormously influential think tank.
Its board of directors is a who’s-who in foreign policy statecraft, featuring no fewer than seven former CIA directors.
Also on the board are many of the architects of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and James Baker. When organizations like this begin beating the war drums, everybody should take note.
…
The Hudson Institute
Perhaps the most strongly anti-Beijing think tank in Washington is the conservative Hudson Institute, an organization frequented by many of the Republican Party’s most influential figures, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former Vice-President Mike Pence and Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton.
The words “China” or “Chinese” appear 137 times in Hudson’s latest annual report, so focused on the Asian nation are they. Indeed, reading their output, it often appears they care about little else but ramping up tensions with Beijing, condemning it for its treatment of Hong Kong, Taiwan and Uyghur Muslims, and warning of the economic and military threat of a rising China.
Over the years, Hudson’s efforts have been sustained by huge donations from TECRO.
The Hudson Institute does not disclose the exact donations any sources give, but their annual reports show that TECRO has been on the highest tier of donors ($100,000+) every year since they began divulging their sponsors in 2015. In February, Hudson Senior Fellow Thomas J. Duesterberg wrote an op-ed for Forbes entitled “The Economic Case for Prioritizing a U.S.-Taiwan Free Trade Agreement,” in which he extolled Taiwan’s economy as modern and dynamic and portrayed securing closer economic ties with it as a no-brainer. Hudson employees have also traveled to Taiwan to meet and hold events with leading foreign ministry officials there.
The Hudson Institute also recently partnered with the more liberal Center for American Progress (CAP) to host an event with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen, who took the opportunity to make a great number of inflammatory statements about the “ever more challenging threats to free and democratic societies” China poses; applaud the U.S.’ actions on Hong Kong; and talk about how Taiwan honors and celebrates those who died at the Tiananmen Square massacre. TECRO gave the CAP between $50,000 and $100,000 last year.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
It is the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), however, that appears to receive the most Taiwanese money.
According to its donor list, Taiwan gives as much money to it as the United States does — at least $500,000 last year alone.
Yet all of the Taiwanese government money is put into CSIS’s regional studies (i.e., Asia) program. Like Hudson employees, the CSIS calls for a free trade agreement with Taiwan and has lavished praise on the nation for its approach to tackling disinformation, describing it as a “thriving democracy and a cultural powerhouse.”
Although acknowledging that the reports were paid for by TECRO, CSIS insists that “all opinions expressed herein should be understood to be solely those of the authors and are not influenced in any way by any donation.”
In December, the CSIS also held a debatesuggesting that “[w]ithin the next five years, China will use significant military force against a country on its periphery,” exploring what the U.S. response to such an action should be.
Like the Atlantic Council, the CSIS organization is stacked with senior officials from the national security state. Its president and CEO is former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre, while Henry Kissinger — former secretary of state and the architect of the Vietnam War — also serves on its council.
The Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD)
The CSIS accepts money from the Global Taiwan Institute and the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy (TFD) as well. The former is a rather shadowy pro-Taiwanese group that appears not to disclose its funding sources.
The latter is a government-funded organization headed by former Taiwanese President You Si-kun.
Every year, the TFD publishes a human rights report on China, the latest of which claims that “the Chinese Communist Party knows no bounds when it comes to committing serious human rights violations” — accusing it of “taking the initiative” in “promoting a new Cold War over the issue of human rights” and trying to “replace the universal standing of human rights values around the world.”
Ultimately, the report concludes, China “constitutes a major challenge to democracy and freedom in the world.”
Joseph Hwang of The War College in Taiwan speaks at a CSIS about how Taiwan acts a buffer to protect US data infrastructure from China
The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation
The TFD has also been a major funder of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, a far-right pressure group that insists that Communism has killed over 100 million people worldwide.
Last year, the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation added all global COVID-19 fatalities to the list of Communist-caused deaths on the basis that the virus started in China.
The Foundation also employs Adrian Zenz, a German evangelical theologian who is the unlikely source of many of the most controversialandcontested claims about Chinese repression in Xinjiang province.
Other funded anti-China Think-Tanks
In the past 12 months, TECRO has also donated six-figure sums to many other prominent think tanks, including…
MintPress reached out to a number of these think tanks for comment but has not received any response.
“It would be naive to believe that Taiwan’s funding of think tanks is not pushing them to take pro-Taiwan or anti-China positions,” Ben Freeman, the director of the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy, told MintPress, adding:
After all, why would Taiwan keep funding think tanks that are critical of Taiwan? There’s a Darwinian element to foreign funding of think tanks that pushes foreign government funding to think tanks that write what that foreign government wants them to write. Taiwan is no exception to this rule.”
TECRO is not just sponsoring American think tanks, however.
the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
It has also given funds to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), a hawkish and controversial group described as “the think tank behind Australia’s changing view of China.” The country’s former ambassador in Beijing described ASPI as “the architect of the China threat theory in Australia” while Senator Kim Carr of Victoria denounced them as working hand-in-hand with Washington to push “a new Cold War with China.”
ASPI was behind Twitter’s decision last year to purge more than 170,000 accounts sympathetic to Beijing from its platform.
“We must be ready to fight our corner as Taiwan tensions rise,” ASPI wrote in January, having previously castigated the West for being “no longer willing to defend Taiwan.”
Who is behind all this money, ultimately?
ASPI — like Brookings, the Atlantic Council and others — are directly funded by weapons manufacturers, all of whom also have a direct interest in promoting more wars around the world.
Thus, if the public is not careful, certain special interests might be helping move the United States towards yet another international conflict.
While the situation outlined above is concerning enough, the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative’s research has shown that around one-third of think tanks still do not provide any information whatsoever about their funding, and very few are completely open about their finances.
Freeman maintains that, while there is nothing inherently wrong with foreign governments funding Western think tanks, the lack of transparency is seriously problematic, explaining:
This raises a lot of questions about the work they’re doing. Are their secret funders saying what the think tank can do in a pay-for-play scheme? Are the funders buying the think tanks silence on sensitive issues? Without knowing the think tank’s funders, policymakers and the public have no idea if the think tank’s work is objective research or simply the talking points of a foreign government.”
Freeman’s study of the Taiwanese lobby found that seven organizations registered as Taiwan’s foreign agents in the U.S.
Those organizations, in turn, contacted 476 Members of Congress (including almost 90% of the House), as well as five congressional committees.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was their most frequent contact, the Californian being contacted 34 times by Taiwanese agents. Pelosi has been a great supporter of Taiwanese nationalists, successfully promoting pro-Taiwan legislation and proudly announcing that the U.S. “stands with Taiwan.”
Foreign agents working on behalf of Taiwan also made 143 political contributions to U.S. politicians, with former Alabama Senator Doug Jones the lead recipient (Pelosi was third).
Losing China, regaining Taiwan?
The reports listed above understand the dispute as purely a matter of Chinese belligerence against Taiwan and certainly do not consider U.S. military actions in the South China Sea as aggressive in themselves.
That is because the world of think tanks and war planners sees the United States as owning the planet.
America has the right to go and do anything that it desires anywhere on the globe at any time.
To this day, U.S. planners bemoan the “loss of China” in 1949 (a phrase that presupposes the United States owned the country).
After a long and bloody Second World War, Communist resistance forces under Mao Tse-tung managed to both expel the Japanese occupation and overcome the U.S.-backed Kuomintang (nationalist) force led by Chang Kai-shek. The United States actually invaded China in 1945, with 50,000 troops working with the Kuomintang and even Japanese forces in an attempt to suppress the Communists. However, by 1949, Mao’s army was victorious; the United States evacuated and Chang Kai-shek retreated to Taiwan.
The Kuomintang ruled the island for 40 years as a one-party state and remains one of the two major political groups to this day.
The war between the Communists and the Kuomintang never formally ended, and Taiwan has now lived through 70 years of estrangement from the mainland. Polls show a majority of Taiwanese now favor full independence, although a large majority still personally identify as Chinese.
While many Taiwanese welcome an increased U.S. presence in the region, Beijing certainly does not.
American military is getting ready for a war
In 2012, President Barack Obama announced the U.S.’ new “Pivot to Asia” strategy, moving forces from the Middle East towards China. Today, over 400 American military bases encircle China.
In recent months, the United States has also taken a number of provocative military actions on China’s doorstep.
In July, it conducted naval exercises in the South China Sea, with warships and naval aircraft spotted just 41 nautical miles from the coastal megacity of Shanghai, intent on probing China’s coastal defenses.
And in December, it flew nuclear bombers over Chinese vessels close to Hainan Island.
Earlier this year, the head of Strategic Command made his intentions clear, stating that there was a “very real possibility” of war against China over a regional conflict like Taiwan.
China, for its part, has also increased its forces in the region, carrying out military exercises and staking claims to a number of disputed islands.
A new Director of National Intelligence (DNI) report notes that China is the U.S.’ “unparalleled priority,” claiming that Beijing is making a “push for global power.” “We expect that friction will grow as Beijing steps up attempts to portray Taipei as internationally isolated and dependent on the mainland for economic prosperity, and as China continues to increase military activity around the island,” it concludes.
In an effort to stop this, Washington has recruited allies into the conflict. Australian media are reporting that their military is currently readying for war in an effort to force China to back down, while in late April 2021 President Joe Biden met with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga to shore up a united front against Beijing vis-a-vis Taiwan.
In February, the Atlantic Council penned an anonymous 26,000-word report advising Biden to draw a number of red lines around China, beyond which a response — presumably military — is necessary. These included any military action or even a cyber attack against Taiwan. Any backing down from this stance, the council states, would result in national “humiliation” for the United States.
American fantasy dreams
Perhaps most notably, however, the report also envisages what a successful American China policy would look like by 2050:
[T]he United States and its major allies continue to dominate the regional and global balance of power across all the major indices of power;… [and head of state Xi Jinping] has been replaced by a more moderate party leadership; and … the Chinese people themselves have come to question and challenge the Communist Party’s century-long proposition that China’s ancient civilization is forever destined to an authoritarian future.”
In other words, that China has been broken and that some sort of regime change has occurred.
Forked tongue speak
Throughout all this, the United States has been careful to stress that it still does not recognize Taiwan and that their relationship is entirely “unofficial,” despite claiming that its commitment to the island remains “rock solid.”
Indeed, only 14 countries formally recognize Taiwan, the largest and most powerful of which is Paraguay.
Along with a military conflict brewing, Washington has also been prosecuting an information and trade war against China on the world stage.
Attempts to block the rise of major Chinese companies like Huawei, TikTok and Xiaomi are examples of this.
Others in Washington have advised the Pentagon to carry out an under-the-table culture war against Beijing.
This would include commissioning “Taiwanese Tom Clancy” novels that would “weaponize” China’s one-child policy against it.
And, bombarding citizens with stories about how their only children will die in a war over Taiwan.
Republicans and Democrats constantly accuse each other of being in President Xi’s pocket, attempting to outdo each other in their jingoistic fervor.
Last year, in 2020, Florida Senator Rick Scottwent so far as to announce that every Chinese national in the U.S. was a Communist spy and should be treated with extreme suspicion.
As a result, the American public’s view of China has crashed to an all-time low.
Only three years ago, the majority of Americans held a positive opinion of China. But today, that number is only 20%. Asian-Americans of all backgrounds have reported a rise in hate crimes against them.
Cash rules everything around me
How much of the United States’ aggressive stance towards China can be attributed to Taiwanese money influencing politics?
It is difficult to say.
Certainly, the United States has its own policy goals in East Asia outside of Taiwan.
But Freeman believes that the answer is not zero. The Taiwan lobby “absolutely has an impact on U.S. foreign policy,” he said, adding:
At one level, it creates an echo-chamber in D.C. that makes it taboo to question U.S. military ties with Taiwan.
While I, personally, think there are good strategic reasons for the U.S. to support this democratic ally — and it’s clearly in Taiwan’s interest to keep the U.S. fully entangled in their security — it’s troubling that the D.C. policy community can’t have an honest conversation about what U.S. interests are.
But, Taiwan’s lobby in D.C. and their funding of think tanks both work to stifle this conversation and, frankly, they’ve been highly effective.”
Other national lobbies affect U.S. policy.
The Cuban lobby helps ensure that the American stance towards its southern neighbor remains as antagonistic as possible.
Meanwhile, the Israel lobby helps ensure continuing U.S. support for Israeli actions in the Middle East.
Yet more ominously with Taiwan, its representatives are helping push the U.S. closer towards a confrontation with a nuclear power.
While Taiwanese money appears to have convinced many in Washington, it is doubtful that ordinary Americans will be willing to risk a war over an island barely larger than Hawaii, only 80 miles off the coast of mainland China.
Despite hopes by some that with Joe Biden a new US foreign policy will follow – US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has reaffirmed Washington’s committment to seeking conflict in the South China Sea under the guise of “standing with Southeast Asian claimants.”
Reuters in their article, “US stands with SE Asian countries against China pressure, Blinken say” would claim:
.
Secretary Blinken pledged to stand with Southeast Asian claimants in the face of PRC pressure,” it said, referring to the People’s Republic of China.
China claims almost all of the energy-rich South China Sea, which is also a major trade route. The Philippines, Brunei, Vietnam, Malaysia and Taiwan have overlapping claims.
The United States has accused China of taking advantage of the distraction of the coronavirus pandemic to advance its presence in the South China Sea.
The US announcement confirms that a confrontational posture toward China will continue regardless of who occupies the White House – as US tensions with China are rooted in unelected Western special interests and their desire to remove China as a competitor and potential usurper in what US policy papers themselves call “US primacy in Asia.”
US Primacy in Asia
One such paper titled, “Revising US Grand Strategy Toward China,”…
…published by the Council on Foreign Relations in 2015…
…not only spelled out the US desire to maintain that primacy in Asia vis-a-vis China…
… but also how it would use overlapping claims in the South China Sea as a pretext to justify….
…an expanded military presence in the region and as a common cause to pressure China’s neighbors into a united front against Beijing.
The paper would note specific US goals of militarizing Southeast Asia and integrating the region into a common US-led defense architecture against China.
It is a policy built upon the US “pivot to Asia” unveiled as early as 2011 and a policy that has been built upon in turn during the last four years under the Trump administration – demonstrating the continuity of agenda that permeates US foreign policy.
Turning Disputes into Conflict
Maritime disputes are common throughout the world – even in the West.
Just at the end of last year, the Guardian in an article titled, “Four navy ships to help protect fishing waters in case of no-deal Brexit,” would report:
Four Royal Navy patrol ships will be ready from 1 January to help the UK protect its fishing waters in the event of a no-deal Brexit, in a deployment evoking memories of the “cod wars” in the 1970s.The 80-metre-long armed vessels would have the power to halt, inspect and impound all EU fishing boats operating within the UK’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which can extend 200 miles from shore.
In terms of such disputes, the waters of the South China Sea are no exception.
Not only does China have overlapping claims with the nations mentioned in the Reuters article – each nation listed has overlapping claims with one another.
This results in sporadic disputes between all of these nations – occasionally resulting in the seizing of vessels and the temporary detaining of boat crews.
However – these disputes are regularly settled through bilateral methods – including disputes between Southeast Asian nations and China itself.
A high-profile example of this unfolded in 2015 where a US-led legal case was brought to the Hague on behalf of the Philippines regarding Chinese claims over the South China Sea.
While the Hague ruled in the Philippines’ favor – Manila declined to use the ruling as leverage against Beijing or to seek Washington’s assistance – and instead pursued bilateral talks with Beijing directly on its own.
It is a case that demonstrates the desire by Washington to escalate what are ordinary maritime disputes, into a regional or even international crisis – not unlike the US’ strategy in the Middle East which it uses to justify its perpetual military occupation there.
More recently the issue of the South China Sea has come up at ASEAN Summits.
Al Jazeera in its article, “ASEAN summit: South China Sea, coronavirus pandemic cast a shadow,” would cite Malaysia’s take on the issue, noting:
“The South China Sea issue must be managed and resolved in a rational manner,” Malaysia’s Foreign Minister Hishammuddin Hussein told the meeting. “We must all refrain from undertaking activities that would complicate matters in the South China Sea. We have to look at all avenues, all approaches to ensure our region is not complicated further by other powers.”
While the US poses a champion for Southeast Asia – it is clear that its efforts are unwelcome and viewed instead as a source of instability – not a path toward resolution.
It is almost certain that it is Washington the Malaysian foreign minister was referring to when he mentioned “other powers.”
Just as the US nominated itself as protector of European “energy security” in its bid to obstruct the Russian-German Nord Stream 2 pipeline – the US has inserted itself into relatively routine maritime disputes in the South China Sea – not to “stand with” the nations of the region, but to serve as an excuse to impose its “primacy” over them.
The nations of Southeast Asia count China among their largest trade partners, sources of tourism, and for several – a key military and infrastructure partner.
The prospect of a regionally destabilizing conflict originating over long-standing disputes in the South China Sea benefits no one actually located in Asia – and only serves the interests of those beyond Asia seeking to divide and reassert their rule over it.
Who are these people?
Who are these Taiwan Oligarchs that want to start World War III? Most are old men. The youngest is in their 60’s. Most are in their mid to late 70’s and much older. What are they trying to do, and why? Are they so fixated in what happened fifty years ago that they cannot see what is going on right now, and what a bright future lies ahead for them?
MM is providing their names right here for you all to see.
Yeah. I wonder how much of a shame it would be for these people to suddenly stop provoking a war beacause of other issues that they need to deal with.
Conclusion to all of this
The governments do not want wars or conflict in the South China Sea, but the oligarchs do.
They are pushing, and pushing, and pushing for a war.
And “red lines” have been established.
For China to invade Taiwan.
For China to attack American cities.
For Taiwan to get involved with the United States.
And the wealthy oligarchy are pushing these limits.
And this is what is going on right now.
How successful will the oligarchy be? It’s a matter up to the government leadership.
A final word…
It’s propaganda that is pushing the world towards world war III. And this propaganda is very devious and very destructive.
The following is from the US defense department. It shows the nuclear delivery systems of American, China and Russia compared. Imagine that, the only nuclear delivery systems that America has according to the media are airborne!
From the US Department of Defense Nuclear Posture Review.
Do you believe it?
You shouldn’t. It’s false; it’s a lie.
But many do believe it. And that why there is an inherent danger in all these oligarchs pushing the world towards world war III.
You’ll not find any big banners or popups here talking about cookies and privacy notices. There are no ads on this site (aside from the hosting ads – a necessary evil). Functionally and fundamentally, I just don’t make money off of this blog. It is NOT monetized. Finally, I don’t track you because I just don’t care to.
It's true, and as time goes on it appears that America is just the big bad neighborhood bully that everyone is afraid of, and that no one ever stands up to. That is until one day...
This is a pretty damning and frightening title, don’t you think? Well, it’s true and it’s accurate. But you won’t ever see anyone be so absolutely blunt as MM here. This isn’t salacious and eye catching as some kind of “click bait” for “doom porn”. Never the less, it’s a real and serous issue. And we are talking about it here, simply because the “drums of war” are beating loudly inside of America.
American war drums are beating loudly.
#7 ·
It's a shame that everyone is China bashing these days, and all of that is based on the USA government controlled press.
If anyone were to do some research on the subject of China's claim to sovereignty over these South China Sea Islands, then they would quickly agree with China's stance.
However, almost all are like "LindaLou" who watched "some" of a morning program "Inside China" and immediately made up his/her mind that China was bad and should be condemned for standing up for their rights.
If this were the USA, making these claims, then ALL of the pandering USA citizens would be following the government press and saying "YES, YES, YES".
The citizens of the USA should be very mindful of the fact that you're being manipulated to believe whatever the government wants you to believe.
Ever watched "1984" ?
Listen to me.
.
Please.
.
America is not able, and is not capable, of fighting either Russia, or China on their territory. And would suffer catastrophic losses at a horrific level. Probably one that would result in the absolute collapse of the country (the entire United States as a nation) to a point where it is completely unrecognizable afterwards.
And you know, many, many people are starting to wake up to this fact. Even the most deluded sheeple. Some Americans. Maybe in numbers as high as 1% are scratching their heads and asking… what? You want to fight?
Why?
You're not suggesting that taking out China would be as easy, are you?
I guarantee you that the US cannot defeat China. We are no longer the world's leading super power and, in fact, we're on the verge of becoming #3.
China is #1 and we're close to coming in behind Russia.
#18 ·
Any of the following areas of American provocation would result in the nuclear detonation upon American cities…
China over Taiwan.
China over Tibet.
China over Hong Kong.
China over Xinjiang.
China over the South China Sea.
Russia over the Ukraine.
The American military planners are aware of this fact. And so they have been conducting all sorts of studies, and war games, to find solutions where America would win a war again either Russia, China or both simultaneously.
They can’t find ANY.
Many in the know, believe America has two options when it comes to winning a world war against China and Russia. Also, what most agree on is the fact that America cannot win a conventional war against either power, or both.
- Can America Win World War III? A Critical Analysis
Of course, because everyone is “dancing around it” and refuses to look at the issue “face to face” the actual study results (studies… many) are coded in euphemisms. Instead of saying that the United States military was wiped off the face of the globe, the studies say…
"...there were challenges and difficulties that were encountered..."
Instead of saying that all the United States carriers were non-functional after three days, the reports read…
"...the Navy needs to invest money to improve defensive capabilities in a new and contentious environment...".
Instead of saying that half of the expensive and elaborate high cost weapons and equipment were no longer operable, the reports stated…
"...challenges in training must be addressed..."
These euphemisms have become the “New Speak” of American Imperial Policy. As this quote outlays…
"Question: So you think that the United States can no longer be called a democracy?"Answer: Democratic countries do not engage in blackmail and threats against other sovereign states, do not interfere in their internal affairs. They do not violate international law, do not use military force and economic sanctions bypassing the UN. They do not trample on human rights or restrict freedom of speech on their territory and abroad. They do not try to use racism of all stripes to solve internal problems, nor do they lure extremists and terrorists to their side for geopolitical purposes. They do not allow transnational corporations to interfere in the work of the government, imposing their own interests on the country and society, much less block the legitimate head of state in social networks and mass media. In democratic countries, the administration that came to power does not disavow the decisions of its predecessors simply because there has been a personal antagonism between them."
But a "democratic country" is whatever America defines it as--at any given moment!
America is just like Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland: “When I use a word ... it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
Torture is Enhanced Interrogation.
Coup D'etats are Regime Change.
Kill Lists are a Disposition Threat Matrix.
Wars of Aggression are Wars of Choice (or Pre-emptive kinetic military action).
Ignorance is Strength....
As a former high-level Bush Regime official boasted, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”
Welcome to the American Rules-Based Order.
-Posted by: ak74 | May 4 2021 23:21 utc | 30
And this use of euphemisms has been seriously misinterpreted by the American leadership elite who mistakenly believe that they can fight either or both Russia and China simultaneously and win in any conflict. And here you have Metallicman saying that this is simply not true.
Fifty years of fighting small, lightly armed military, in under-developed nations that rely on obsolete technology and who, at best engage in GuerillaWarfareshould not be considered the same thing as fighting a determined, skilled, peer capable military in Asia.
Well, this is well understood.
But whether or not American military is able to fight a war is not a concern to the bureaucracy in Washington DC. Whether they are able to profit from the threat of war is. And thus we have this curious article…
Warships sink. Bases burn. F-35s die on the runway. Can $24 billion a year — 3.3 % of the Pentagon budget — fix the problem?
WASHINGTON: The US keeps losing, hard, in simulated wars with Russia and China. Bases burn. Warships sink. But we could fix the problem for about $24 billion a year, one well-connected expert said, less than four percent of the Pentagon budget.
“In our games, when we fight Russia and China,” RAND analyst David Ochmanek said this afternoon, “blue gets its ass handed to it.”
In other words, in RAND’s wargames, which are often sponsored by the Pentagon, the US forces — colored blue on wargame maps — suffer heavy losses in one scenario after another and still can’t stop Russia or China — red — from achieving their objectives, like overrunning US allies.
No, it’s not a Red Dawn nightmare scenario where the Commies conquer Colorado.
But losing the Baltics or Taiwan would shatter American alliances, shock the global economy, and topple the world order the US has led since World War II.
Hey! Boys and Girls! I've got news for you all. The US no longer leads the world. It just thinks it does. The American Leadership shill haven't read the reports yet. -MM
Body Blows & Head Hits
How could this happen, when we spend over $700 billion a year on everything from thousand-foot-long nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to supersonic stealth fighters?
Well, it turns out US superweapons have a little too much Achilles in their heels.
“In every case I know of,” said Robert Work, a former deputy secretary of defense with decades of wargaming experience, “the F-35 rules the sky when it’s in the sky, but it gets killed on the ground in large numbers.”
Even the hottest jet has to land somewhere.
But big airbases on land and big aircraft carriers on the water turn out to be big targets for long-range precision-guided missiles.
Once an American monopoly, such smart weapons are now a rapidly growing part of Russian and Chinese arsenals — as are the long-range sensors, communications networks, and command systems required to aim them.
So, as potential adversaries improve their technology, “things that rely on sophisticated base infrastructure like runways and fuel tanks are going to have a hard time,” Ochmanek said. “Things that sail on the surface of the sea are going to have a hard time.”
That’s why the 2020 budget retires the carrier USS Truman decades early and cuts two amphibious landing ships, as we’ve reported.
It’s also why the Marine Corps is buying the jump-jet version of the F-35, which can take off and land from tiny, ad hoc airstrips, but how well they can maintain a high-tech aircraft in low-tech surroundings is an open question.
While the Air Force and Navy took most of the flak today at this afternoon’s Center for a New American Security panel on the need for “A New American Way of War.” the Army doesn’t look too great, either.
Its huge supply bases go up in smoke as well, Work and Ochmanek said. Its tank brigades get shot up by cruise missiles, drones, and helicopters because the Army largely got rid of its mobile anti-aircraft troops, a shortfall it’s now hastening to correct.
And its missile defense units get overwhelmed by the sheer volume of incoming fire.
“I think it’s unanimous from all the soldiers involved that we got this one right,” said the Army’s project manager for the Future Tactical Unmanned Aerial System. Manned aircraft, FARA and FLRAA, are also moving out sharply.
- Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
“If we went to war in Europe, there would be one Patriot battery moving, and it would go to Ramstein. And that’s it,” Work growled. “We have 58 Brigade Combat Teams, but we don’t have anything to protect our bases, so what different does it make?”
Worst of all, Work and Ochmanek said, the US doesn’t just take body blows, it takes a hard hit to the head as well.
Its communications satellites, wireless networks, and other command-and-control systems suffer such heavy hacking and jamming that they are, in Ochmanek’s words, “suppressed, if not completely shattered.”
The US has wargamed cyber and electronic warfare in field exercises, Work said, but the simulated enemy forces tend to shut down US networks so effectively that nothing works and nobody else gets any training done.
“Whenever we have an exercise and the red force really destroys our command and control, we stop the exercise,” Work said, instead of trying to figure out how to keep fighting when your command post gives you nothing but blank screens and radio static.
The Chinese call this “system destruction warfare,” Work said: They plan to “attack the American battle network at all levels, relentlessly, and they practice it all the time.”
In short, if Biden rashly sends the military to Taiwan’s defense, he could be sending us to our greatest naval defeat in our history.
If the president’s military advisers convince him to attack military targets on the mainland, the results would be mushroom clouds over U.S. cities.
-1945
The $24 Billion Fix — And Cuts
So how do you fix such glaring problems?
The Air Force asked RAND to come up with a plan two years ago, and, surprisingly, Ochmanek said, “we found it impossible to spend more than $8 billion a year.”
That’s $8 billion for the Air Force. Triple that to cover for the Army and the Navy Department (which includes the US Marines), Ochmanek said, and you get $24 billion.
Yes, these are very broad strokes, but that’s only 3.3 percent of the $750 billion defense budget President Trump will propose for the 2020 fiscal year.
Work was less worried about the near-term risk — he thinks China and Russia aren’t eager to try anything right now — and more about what happens 10 to 20 years from now. But, he said, “sure, $24 billion a year for the next five years would be a good expenditure.
So what does that $24 billion buy?
To start with, missiles. Lots and lots of missiles. The US and its allies notoriously keep underestimating how many smart weapons they’ll need for a shooting war, then start to run out against enemies as weak as the Serbs or Libyans. Against a Russia or China, which can match not only our technology but our mass, you run out of munitions fast.
Specifically, you want lots of long-range offensive missiles. Ochmanek mentioned Army artillery brigades, which use MLRS missile launchers, and the Air Force’s JAGM-ER smart bomb, while Work touted the Navy’s LRASM ship-killer. You also want lots of defensive missiles to shoot down the enemy‘s offensive missiles, aircraft, and drones. One short-term fix there is the Army’s new Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense (MSHORAD) batteries, Stinger missiles mounted on 8×8 Stryker armored vehicles. In the longer term, lasers, railguns, and high-powered microwaves could shoot down incoming missiles much less expensively.
The other big fix: toughening up our command, control, and communications networks. That includes everything from jam-proof datalinks to electronic warfare gear on combat aircraft and warships. The services are fond of cutting corners on electronics to get as many planes in the air and hulls in the water as possible, Ochmanek said, but a multi-billion dollar ship that dies for lack of a million-dollar decoy is a lousy return on investment.
In the longer run, Work added, you want to invest heavily in artificial intelligence: not killer robots, he said, but “loyal wingmen” drones to support manned aircraft and big-data crunchers to help humans analyze intelligence and plan. Of course, you have to find the money for new stuff somewhere, which means either raising the defense budget even further — unlikely — or cutting existing programs. Ochmanek was unsurprisingly shy about specifics, saying only that the services could certainly squeeze out $8 billion each for new technologies.
Work was a little harder-edged. He said cutting a carrier and two amphibious ships over the forthcoming 2020-2024 budget “seems right to me.” He argued the US Army has way too many brigade combat teams — tanks and infantry — and way too little missile defense to protect them. And he bemoaned reports the US Air Force will retire the B-1 bomber, one of its few long-range strike aircraft: If the Air Force doesn’t want them, he said, give them to the Navy, revive the old VPB “Patrol Bomber” squadrons, and load them with Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles to sink the Chinese navy. Pentagon leaders should challenge the armed services to solve very hard, very specific problems.
Work said: Sink 350 Chinese navy and coast guard vessels in the first 72 hours of a war, or destroy 2,400 Russian armored vehicles. Whoever has the best solution gets the most money. Those are hardly easy goals, Work said, but they’re also doable with technology now in development.
Easy Solution. The immediate problems could be fixed with technology already in production, Ochmanek said. For $24 billion, “I can buy the whole kit,” he said. “It’s all mature technologies and it would scare the crap out of adversaries, in a good way.”
It’s all about the money…
According to Washington DC K-Street neocons, the solution is more money. Not, instead, to rethink the value of conducting war against a peer-capable enemy. Especially one that has no intention on invading America. And they should think about the consequences…
No matter how one calculates it, fighting China over Taiwan would harm American interests and security without even holding the potential for benefit.
We must resist the temptation to act on the presumption that we can always choose to fight because we will always win.
The future of our country might hinge on getting this right.
-1945
The only threat to America these days is domestic. Internally, America is collapsing and the rest of the world isn’t. But… Let’s suppose that the money-grabbing Washington “think tanks” have made the necessary Power Point PPT presentations and convinced, actually convinced, those that control the utilization of the military that it is indeed possible to win a war. What then? Well let’s look at the situation from this point of view…
Biden Can’t Assume America Beats China in a Taiwan War
Joe Biden will face a host of difficulties and challenges when he assumes office on January 20, but perhaps none more consequential than deteriorating China-U.S. relations.
It is the potential flashpoint of Taiwan that will have the greatest urgency. Many in Washington are advocating a shedding of the decades’ old policy of “strategic ambiguity,” in favor of an overt declaration that we would come to the defense of Taiwan if China ever seeks to reunify the island by force.
Well. According to the UN, and both China and Taiwan, Taiwan is Han Chinese and part of China. It operates independently like Hong Kong does. But in no way is it an American territory. Which is something that the United States media and the neocons in Washington DC wants everyone to believe.
Assumed in such advocacy is the presumption the U.S. Armed Forces would be able to successfully accomplish that mission. For at least three major reasons, those assumptions are badly misplaced.
First, the risk is high that on purely military fundamentals, the United States would fail to successfully prevent a resolute and committed Chinese assault. As the most recent Department of Defense annual report to Congress on China details, China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) – remains on a multi-decade modernization push that has seen them develop a substantial defensive capability, known as anti-access, area-denial (A2/AD).
China’s A2/AD strategy, the Pentagon report explains, is designed to “dissuade, deter, or, if ordered, defeat third-party intervention during a large-scale, theater campaign such as a Taiwan contingency.”
Their strategy includes the use of modern weaponry including warships, new fighters, increasingly lethal missile forces, heavy armor, and cyberattack capability.
When comparing the armed forces of the United States and China, we are still substantially more capable than China. Our ability to project power, for example, remains ahead of China.
Critically, however, the balance of power near China’s shores would give them virtually EVERY military advantage.
Repeated wargames conducted in the United States pitting the U.S. against China in a Taiwan scenario reveal the ugly truth.
Former Assistant Secretary of Defense and current RAND analyst David A. Ochmanek revealed earlier this year that simulation exercises have exposed troubling results when the U.S. intervenes in war between China and Taiwan.
The American side, Ochmanek admitted, has “had its ass handed to it for years.”
The reasons for the simulated combat losses aren’t hard to understand.
Over the past few decades, the Chinese have developed modern weapons of war and have improved the quality of their fighting force substantially above where they were when the U.S. dismantled Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi army in 1991.
Though our military is globally superior any fight within the so-called “first island chain” near China’s coast would play to Beijing’s tactical advantage.
As if 2020, this is now obsolete. According to the United States military, and the Trump White House the "first island chain" delimitation line is no longer an American advantage.
It is an area of Chinese military advantage.
Our conventional and nuclear power deter China from ever attacking the U.S. mainland or Armed Forces – but if we choose to intervene in their back yard, they would have the advantage.
Second, in the event of war, Taiwan may defend itself not merely by targeting the attacking Chinese forces, but by hitting military bases on the Chinese mainland.
If the U.S. joins the fight against China, it is unlikely China would differentiate whether an attack against its mainland came from a Taiwanese or American source and may well prompt a Chinese retaliation against U.S. targets either in the region (such as in Japan, South Korea, Guam, or Hawaii) or directly on our continental homeland. The risk would then rise precipitously of a nuclear response against American Cities on American soil.
Third, even if we overcame all the difficulties and imposed an outright defeat on the Chinese, there’s no guarantee China wouldn’t try again and we would be saddled with permanently garrisoning Taiwan, indefinitely making its security our responsibility. It would also all but guarantee a new war with China, as an American military presence across the Strait would entice Beijing to prepare for the next round. Taiwan is a core interest of China and they would never quit fighting.
As China has repeatedly warned the brain-dead American leadership, that Taiwan is Chinese territory.
Any American killing of Chinese people on Chinese soil would result in American deaths on American soil.
Of course, the idea that China would stick to a conventional strategy and isolate Taiwan and allow it to work with the United States unencumbered is another major illusion.
There is a much higher chance of San Fransisco turned to a flat, glassed over radioactive plain than this scenario coming into being. The Chinese leadership does not think like an American oligarch.
We would have to spend scores of billions annually to perpetually defend Taiwan, placing severe strain on our economy, diverting military forces and resources from everywhere else in the world, and require a major increase in the size of our military and thus base defense budget.
Undertaking such a burden as the “prize” for successfully preventing China from taking Taiwan could literally bankrupt our country and leave us more vulnerable than we’ve been since before World War I.
If you thought that Afghanistan's trillions of dollars was a waste, you ain't seen nothing yet.
China would make that look like play-money.
China could turn Taiwan into Verdun if it wanted to. And America would be trapped in throwing trillions of dollars into that sink hole, all to the glee of the neocons on K-street.
It should be beyond clear that it is not in America’s interests to take such an enormous risk. Naturally, the United States is a genuine advocate for freedom and self-determination across the globe.
It is not, however, our responsibility to be the global guarantor of every land and peoples’ freedom on the planet.
It would be a tragedy beyond compare if in trying to defend one country’s freedom, we put at risk our ability to guarantee our own.
Why are we even talking about this?
Well? Why?
Like him or hate him. Bernie Sanders made a great point thirty years ago (30 years!) that is even more pointed now. And it describes exactly what is going on right now. It describes the WHY everyone in Washington DC is talking about war with China, or War with Russia…
This video was made exactly 30 years ago.
Now, China at that time was truly third world. Over 90% of it’s people lived in poverty. But the government did exactly what Bernie Sanders proposes in this video, and now look at China today.
Now we have America looking to start a major war.
Idiots!
The next war will reduce all of America to slag. All of it. And the nations… nations… fractured remains that rise up, will be fourth world nations working hard to become more than just a radioactive banana republic.
How a War Against China Could Cripple the United States
Once China has decided to use military force to reunify Taiwan, their first actions will be covert actions designed to quietly set the stage for the assault of their main combat forces.
The assumption is...
The first action that will signal a full-on war has begun will be an initial, major barrage of ballistic missiles screaming across the strait at multiple civilian and military targets.
Once that happens, everything happens at warp speed.
The first barrage of missiles will target critical infrastructure and seek to destroy Taiwan’s ability to respond to the Chinese onslaught.
They will target military airfields to make them unusable, seek to destroy aircraft on the ground, especially those with the ability to conduct command and control and to direct other weapons (like AWACs-type craft); missile boats and Aegis-type destroyers in their births; anti-air and missile batteries on the ground.
“We warn those ‘Taiwan independence’ elements – those who play with fire will burn themselves, and Taiwan independence means war.”
— Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman Wu Qian
In the early hours of the battle, Taiwanese troops are shocked, confused, lack clear communications, and are fighting in the rear and from the front at the beaches.
Also an assumption.
China’s initial objectives will be to secure at least one of the three airfields and capture one or more beach landing sites by the end of the first day of fighting.
If they do, they will have a chance to open an airbridge and beach landing site through which they can pour more and more material with limited opposition. Like at the Normandy beach landings in 1944, once the invading force breaks through at the beach, it is almost impossible for the defenders to win.
The defenders’ primary objective is to identify and destroy all Chinese efforts on the island as quickly as possible, retain control of all airfields, and keep the beaches impregnable.
If China is not successful in landing the knock-out blow within the first 48 hours, it will likely have to switch its efforts to dramatically increasing its use of ballistic and cruise missiles, fighter and bomber sorties, and ship-to-shore missiles to try and force an opening at one or more beach landing zones.
They will try to overwhelm the island through brute force. If Taiwan is successful at preventing any large scale incursions either on the beach or via airborne or air-assault operations, their chances of thwarting the invasion increase dramatically. But they still won’t be out of the woods.
If China cannot penetrate the beach after two weeks of fighting, they may shift to a siege mentality, in which they will continue sustained bombing of the island, but at a reduced rate while putting into effect a naval blockade.
If things broke well for Taiwan, it is entirely possible that they could prevent China from opening any beachheads against their defenses. A naval blockade, however, will be more difficult to overcome.
Without any ability to replace the missiles and other ammunition they expend, no way to medically evacuate their wounded, or to import oil to power their warships, fuel their armored vehicles, and generate electricity – not to mention feed the population.
Though Taiwan can inflict serious damage to the PLA military, China’s capacity to absorb the damage and replace losses – while maintaining a blockade – is unlikely to be enough to stave off eventual defeat.
Taipei’s hope that by holding out long enough the U.S. will come riding to a the rescue will, one way or another, be dashed.
Constraints on U.S. Response
As Admiral Philip Davidson said in recent Congressional testimony, it would take American ships based in Alaska 17 days to reach Taiwan; 21 days from the U.S. West Coast.
Which is the entire idea behind the QUAD. To have massive military forces within close proximity of China. And thus American military would stream from Australia into the South Pacific Sea.
Beijing’s attack will require a no-notice launch to minimize the Taiwanese defender’s ability to man their positions, but possibly the greater purpose will be to ensure the U.S. Navy and Air Force are caught flat-footed and unable to mount an effective response.
To even have a chance at success, U.S. Forces in the Pacific region would have to have months to prepare.
They would have to bring personnel strength up near 100%, make all their ships and aircraft combat ready and fully supplied with wartime ammunition and fuel stocks.
That will never happen. At best American equipment is at 35% readiness, with a goal of some day reaching 50% readiness.
Any shortfalls in personnel, ships, and planes would have to be redeployed from other theaters to bring the Pacific naval and air fleets up to full capacity. None of those will be possible with a no-notice surprise attack by Beijing – and that vulnerability will put the U.S. president in a real bind.
Crisis in the White House Situation Room
The instant the first report reaches the Situation Room, the White House will assemble a crisis response team of senior advisors to begin analyzing the situation and debating potential responses.
Some will suggest the president order immediate long-range missile attacks against Chinese invasion air and naval forces in an attempt to aid the defenders.
Others may advocate hitting the Chinese bases supporting the invasion.
China will likely warn Biden that any attack on China-proper will result in missile strikes on American cities with conventional warheads* (still very lethal).
Word is that America HAS been warned. And the type of weapon used has not be specified.
*One of the biggest problems that Americans make is assuming that everyone else thinks like them.
As Mike Sweeny recently wrote for Defense Priorities, such attacks against targets on the Chinese mainland will inflame the Chinese domestic audience against the United States in increase the pressure for a nuclear response.
Again. There is a serious fundamental difference between China and America. In China, day to day public option does not matter. Decisions are not made by mob rule. They are made by merit-appointed true experts and the decisions are always sound. If China believes that the advantage would be to eviscerate New York City with a cluster of six nuclear war heads, then it will do so, and what the newspaper reader on the street thinks will not factor into the equation.
The risk of a war between Washington and Beijing escalating to nuclear is higher than many understand.
Duh!
But the president will face enormous pressures to act militarily in the face of Chinese aggression.
Taiwanese officials will certainly be pleading for the U.S. to intervene. Those in the United States who are already China hawks will almost certainly advocate “limited” military retaliation.
They will argue that Washington cannot stand passively by while China swallows a leading democratic country in Asia.
To refuse to act would be tantamount to Neville Chamberlain’s infamous appeasement at Munich and encourage China to try and conquer other nations militarily. In all fairness, such concerns would not be without merit.
But Biden’s ability to respond militarily would be far more limited than would be commonly understood.
If Congress declared war on China or gave Biden authority to launch a military strike, the best he could do would be to unleash a relatively few cruise missiles and order some long-range bombing sorties from regional bases.
Those would have some impact but be insufficient to stop China’s invasion.
“China’s navy is viewed as posing a major challenge to the U.S. Navy’s ability to achieve and maintain wartime control of blue-water ocean areas in the Western Pacific.”
—Congressional Research Service analysis
To engage in sustained operations in support of Taiwan’s defenses, it would take the U.S. Navy and Air Force months to properly enter the war theater.
Trying to rush our military into a fight as soon as it can reach Taiwan would be near suicidal, as we would be arriving to the fight in sub-optimal condition, not fully resourced – and would face the full brunt of the Chinese air and naval forces (which are about double the size of the U.S. Pacific fleets). As importantly, PRC air and naval forces have long had existing plans to fight a U.S. force sent to aid Taiwan and have conducted countless computer simulations and field exercises.
We would be outnumbered, out-prepared, and out-gunned while fighting a motivated enemy engaged in what it considers an existential battle.
Duh! If Texas was Attacked how would American react? The same kind of visceral reaction should be expected of China.
All of the recent U.S.-based computer simulations reach similar conclusions.
In short, if Biden rashly sends the military to Taiwan’s defense, he could be sending us to our greatest naval defeat in our history.
If the president’s military advisers convince him to attack military targets on the mainland, the results could be mushroom clouds over U.S. cities.
The leaders in Washington DC believe that the loss of a city like Los Angles would be acceptable “collateral losses” in the quest to maintain Democracy off the coast of China.
Fortunately, however, there are superior options for Biden to choose that don’t involve dead Americans.
Preserving U.S. Military Power, Maintaining Security and Freedom
If China bull-headedly turns to violence to take Taiwan by force, the U.S. Government’s overriding priority will be to safeguard American security, freedom, and prosperity.
America's "freedom", and "prosperity"? Americans are so used to repeating the narrative that they no longer know what the words mean.
If Biden resists the temptation to respond immediately, he can dramatically shift the balance of power back in America’s favor by adopting realistic and attainable diplomatic and military strategy that features isolating, resisting, and containing China.
LOL. As if that is going to happen. Did you see any reasoning or strategy in the Alaskan meeting in April 2021 between Washington and China?
If China is foolish enough to gamble its future by attacking Taiwan – and America is smart enough to stay out of the war – the PRC will be severely weakened from its current status.
I disagree.
The entire world relies on Chinese manufacturing. And factories do not grow on trees. There are no quality alternatives for precision manufacturing, high technology products or innovation. Everything has been outsourced to China, and that includes Japanese products and design, German products and design, Korean products and design and all the rest.
The United States has, for some time, championed Taipei building a defensive fortress that would make any Chinese attempt to invade prohibitively expensive.
If anything, (America) should encourage Taiwan to expand further their defenses.
Even if China were successful in catching Taiwan unprepared, the surprise would not be complete, and Taipei would still have the ability to launch retaliatory strikes against the Chinese.
Unlike the United States, Taiwan would have no incentive to resist attacking mainland targets and would attack mainland airfields, naval bases, rocket and missile launch sites, and Chinese defense industry targets.
It would be very difficult seeing that the Chinese can render all missiles inactive by energy beam weapons.
They would also successfully sink some Chinese warships, knock out some fighter jets, and destroy thousands of their troops.
Maybe.
But China does not think like that.
Let me tell you what is more probable.
Nothing happens. Then one day the news says that Taiwan has embraced China as a co-family member. And has decided to get closer to the mainland.
That is the kind of level of strategy that we are dealing with here. Not the crude "blow 'em up" Rambo style of neocon warfare.
The net result of even a successful attack would gouge the PLA, severely weakening their ability to wage war; if Taiwan somehow held out and prevented an island takeover, the PLA would be set back decades and the PRC itself at risk of falling internally.
Um. Not even remotely realistic.
Any nation that can build two (x2) 4000 bed hospitals in ten days, or a 80 story skyscraper in a week, would have no problem replenishing military forces.
In either event, America’s advantage over China would be significantly increased, our ability to protect U.S. interests global continue to be unmatched, and our people continue in complete freedom.
Americans living in "freedom"? Obviously he was doing drugs when he wrote this. I think that he is just rolling off some trite sayings without thinking, rather than adding constructive dialog to make his points with.
Moreover, we would then have decades to increase our defenses from Guam to Hawaii to the West Coast – should that be deemed necessary – to ensure China could never, even decades into the future, successfully mount a cross-Pacific attack.
With what money? When it would take a wheel-barrel full of $100 bills to buy a hamburger?
What Americans think China’s military is like…
This is exactly what Americans think that the Chinese military is today. It’s what most people think. It’s a group of peasant, illiterate, with little training using 1980’s era hand-me-down old Soviet Union weapons. Where, their only strength is in their enormous numbers of people.
What China’s military is actually like…
This has rapidly become my favorite video. This is what the Chinese military is actually like.
This is a singular unit in XinJiang, you know the place; where the gateway to the BRI is, and where America must stop at nothing to disrupt it.
You probably know of it though the propaganda campaign about Uighur Muslims in Concentration Camps and other bullshit. You know. That America “must do something to help those poor oppressed Muslims”. As if the American oligarchy ever cared about Muslims at all, ever.
And some of the technologies that China has. Their quads operate and behave quite differently than what the American units do. And it’s very interesting. You have to keep in mind that all, and every Chinese person is a member of the irregulars. They all have military training, and the enormous size of the Chinese military is only the active “professional” warrior class. Not the irregulars.
And every squad has one of these curious weapons. They also have this other “neato” gun which is sort of a pocket howitzer that is the size of a rifle.
Chinese knives are sure cool, eh?
A personal mortar. Also standard with all squads…
The jeep howitzers are pretty cool too…
And aside from the regular training, and the mandatory of all military train for every single 14 year old boy and girl in China, you have elements of training that is simply not present in the United States, such as being able to shoot, and load a weapon with one hand. As in this movie…
And of course, since all the parts and engines, and subsystems of all the latest military hardware is contracted out to China, it should be no surprise that their home-gown, home-design, and home-manufactured weapons systems would be equal or better than the American ones that spawned them…
All the videos
If you cannot access all or some of the videos you can get them all HERE. Some good stuff, especially if you are a military buff.
Conclusion
In sum, by staying out of a China vs. Taiwan war, not only would America maintain our current strength, our national security would be stronger.
Conversely, if we foolishly insert ourselves into their fight, we will suffer severe damage to our Armed Forces at a minimum, placing our national security around the world at higher risk; in a worst-case, American cities could smolder in radioactive waste for years to come.
No matter how one calculates it, fighting China over Taiwan would harm American interests and security without even holding the potential for benefit.
We must resist the temptation to act on the presumption that we can always choose to fight because we will always win.
The future of our country might hinge on getting this right.
MM Comments
Ah. Perhaps. I can parse though many of his comments and poke holes through them.
(Taiwan) "...would attack mainland airfields, naval bases, rocket and missile launch sites, and Chinese defense industry targets."
Perhaps if he looked at a map he would see how ridiculous this statement is.
Taiwan would try.
And the planes wouldn’t be able to fly with directed energy beam weapons causing them to fall out of the sky.
And even if they could make it back, where would they land.
All the airfields would be cratered.
Ok. You can never predict the outcome of a military operation.
Certainly [1] the failure of the Trump administration to cause starvation in China by using drone launched bio-weapons against livestock didn’t work. The [2] aggressive “color revolution” in Hong Kong didn’t work. The [3] attempt at destabilizing Xinjiang didn’t work, and most certainly [4] the COVID bio-weapon attack against China on CNY with the lethal B-strain did not work.
Any military action in defense of Taiwan… … has a very small likelihood of working.
Chances are that it would not be successful.
And the participation of the American military against China WILL LAUNCH a hot war against America. Which would have at least a few of the following characteristics.
Destruction of Guam
Destruction of Diego Garcia
End of all trade with China… resulting in a collapse of many American industries as they still rely on Chinese trade to operate.
Probable war with Australia and the destruction of Australian Cities.
Russian involvement for certain as an ally of China.
Destruction of the cities in Hawaii.
And a high chance of nuclear destruction of American cities.
I would suggest the destruction of every city over a population of 750,000 in America. That would include all the “big names”. Perhaps the capital of the United States could relocate to Salina , Kansas.
All of these potential issues have an over 65% chance of happening if the USA gets involved and tries to provoke a war regarding China.
So the question really is… …just how out of touch, insane and crazy is the United States leadership? Would they be that foolish to tangle with Russia and China over some South China Sea incident?
Well…
Maybe this next article will provide the answer…
CIA Wokeness
Michael Tracey writes about a weird CIA video that is making the rounds (emphasis added):
In a mind-blowing marketing video first published on March 25, but which had escaped widespread notice until recent days, the CIA enthusiastically endorsed several key tenets of what has now indisputably become a hegemonic left/liberal ideological and rhetorical construct:
“I am a woman of color,” the video’s protagonist, an unnamed CIA officer, triumphantly proclaims. “I am a cisgender millennial who’s been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. I am intersectional, but my existence is not a box-checking exercise.”
She continues, “I used to struggle with imposter syndrome. But at 36, I refuse to internalize misguided patriarchal ideas of what a woman can or should be. I am tired of feeling like I’m supposed to apologize for the space I occupy.”
I have to admit that I do not know what the words are supposed to mean. (Nor does my Firefox spellchecker. It flags them.) I also do not understand the phrases. To me they sounds like utter bullshit. But if the CIA wants to hire more such people I am all for it. Folks who can not leave their personal issues at the door typically muck up their workplace and create productivity problems. A less effective CIA will be a plus for the rest of the world.
But it will certainly enable the already insane leadership to go blindly towards a very dangerous path.
And that path looks, more and more everyday, like a high-speed rail straight to Hell.
It’s all over the chat rooms. America has the best training, the most capable leaders, the strongest military, and the best manufacturing in the world. While China is what? “A third world, has been nation, that has stolen more than it contributes”, right? That’s the narrative. This is typical…
(This article is) Complete BS. You don't understand how military power and capability works.
China doesn't have any Carrier groups, not one. That is a BIG deal.
They can't project any significant sea / air power.
They also don't have any significant amphibious assault capabilities such as the USMC.
Their air-force isn't close in capability.
The majority of their service members have very rudimentary training at best. There is much more to "staff" a military than just hand a rifle to a 16 year old peasant. A 155mm artillery shell or 1000 lb air delivered bomb takes care of numbers.
#34 ·
But the interesting retort is here…
I completely understand how military power and capability works. I didn’t say they could or would invade the US. I said we couldn’t defeat them in a context of their island building in the South Pacific. They’ve been testing and demonstrating anti-satellite weapons for over a decade. They don’t have a lot of carriers but they have a lot of submarines to take out carriers. They don’t have the capability to deliver an invasion force on the US but they definitely have that capacity throughout the South Pacific.They have massive manufacturing capacity and we have dwindled ours to virtual non-existence. In WWII, our fleet was decimated in short order but we had massive manufacturing capacity and we cranked out ships and carriers in droves. Where are we going to do that today? Where are we going to make the electronic components to drive a modern fleet?
Read that carefully. We get our legitimate Mil-Spec electronic parts from China and we get fake parts from China. Where are we going to get them when we go to war with China and have to rebuild a fleet?What about training? We’re training them on how to defeat us:
If you think of China as a backwards country where the soldiers would be 16-year-old peasants, I think you’re wrong.Then you have to consider the likelihood of China using a tactical nuke. Are they crazy enough? They don’t have to be; they need only convince our President that they might be.
But it doesn’t matter. Decades of anti-China propaganda and an onslaught in the belief that America is a nation of Rambo’s has created a situation where everyone is living in this fantasy world…
They would not stand a chance vs the US today.
China has never won a war. They are defensive by nature, they are not an offensive power. historically they build walls. Their "islands" are an example of that. They don't plan on projecting force, they plan on defending what they see as their's.
China can't build a jet engine worth a poop. China can't come up with their own ideas and relies on stealing to make their military products - so how do you conclude they can figure out how to out-think the west?
China has virtually NO access to oil/gas/coal should a war happen. Sounds like a short war.
Their navy would have a fair fight with japan.
If I recall correctly, Japan was beaten without any foot troops...
Ah. A bunch of “arm chair” warriors debating some war that is on the other side of the world. A place where they never visited, and a society and culture that they know nothing about. It’s 2021. China has been very clear about what would happen;
Taiwan, and the SCS islands are all Chinese territory.
Kill one Chinese person on Chinese land, and China will retaliate in an equal measured manner.
They have already demonstrated this…
April 2020 China’s first Type-075 amphibious assault carrier, designed for launching helicopters, caught fire. It was mysterious how it happened. The Chinese Navy put out the fire, and repaired the damage and launched the ship as scheduled.
Then…
July 2020 The Navy’s USS Bonhomme Richard burned for days at its pier in San Diego. After the fire was put out, the Navy registered the destruction as “total” and wrote off the vessel as a total loss.
The Chinese Do Not Play.
A fine reminder…
Here’s a fine reminder for all the jack-asses that believe that American could shoot and kill Chinese people, on Chinese land, and somehow go unscathed…
And let’s continue…
We need to look at the full scope about what it going on…
The full scope
American leadership are clueless psychopaths.
Their toadies are sociopaths that run the levels of government.
The bureaucracy that serves them has been politically and socially corrupted beyond usefulness.
Never the less, all studies point to catastrophic consequences if the United States tries to get involved in a war with either Russia or China.
And Russia and China have signed mutual military treaties so that they will work together if the USA tries to instigate a war.
The public is not aware of this. And because of that, we have a situation where American and their leadership wants a war. And this was made obvious in the April 2021 meeting in Anchorage Alaska.
Meanwhile, the Chinese are not FOOLS. They know exactly what the stakes are, and they will absolutely not permit any “wars of democracy” to land anywhere near them. And if they do… oh, Lordy. God help the American citizenry. There will not be any mercy.
Why?
Because the Chinese know history…
.
Make no mistake.
The Chinese will fight to the death to guarantee that they will not be exterminated like vermin by the psychopaths in Washington DC. They will guarantee it.
Like it or not, but Trump has a real chance of winning the 2024 elections. This in fact will be the best thing ever because the whole world will immediately turn their backs on USA the way they did.
Personally I can't wait for him to f*ck USA up and try to start a war with either China or/and Iran. About time USA get its ass whipped.
Do not worry, the “new and improved” military forces are more than ready to deal with 16 year old goat-herders with malfunctioning cheapo Chinese AK-47 clones…
Check out what the fuck happened to the enormous Armada that steamed to China in 2020. Nope, it did not go as planned. It was a fiasco, and President Trump sacked the top military brass for not following through on his wishes.
You’ll not find any big banners or popups here talking about cookies and privacy notices. There are no ads on this site (aside from the hosting ads – a necessary evil). Functionally and fundamentally, I just don’t make money off of this blog. It is NOT monetized. Finally, I don’t track you because I just don’t care to.
Well, in 2020 Trump decided to go to a “hot” war with China. he sent 7 – 8 assault battle carrier groups to the South China Sea, and an undisclosed number of submarines. I’ve discussed this issue before HERE. And we now know that no “disclosed” fighting actually occurred. The flotilla steamed back to the United States “empty handed”, and the Admiral and his staff were fired immediately when they arrived back in Washington DC.
No word or information is provided as to why the Admiral(s) refused to engaged the Chinese, or attempt the take-over of some “minor” outlying islands. We all, in the Western readership” are all oblivious to it. But the fact is that something actually “spooked” the Naval brass (leadership) in charge of the operation. What was it?
We will never know.
But what we do know is that China is decades ahead of the West in certain technologies such as directed energy weapons and electronic suppression systems. Indeed it would be a sorry day for an entire submarine with 100 – 200 crew and all sorts of multi-million dollar munitions to sink softly to the bottom of the South China Sea when nothing works. It would be a scene out of the Foundation Trilogy.
During the story, there was this group of technologists that controlled the manufacturing and science related to all technology. It had become a religion to them. They were dedicated to technology like religious fanatics.
Meanwhile the various empires and governments were using this technology to conduct wars and achieve their very own petty objectives.
So the leader of the technologists decides to shut everything down, and as a result the Empire space fleet of enormous weapons systems and space-dreadnoughts all shut down and came to a complete stop.
That being said, let’s be real.
Ever since the middle 1990’s the United States has invested billions of dollars in the creation of very expensive and very unique submarine warfare systems. These are not to attack Yemen, or Zaire with. They are to attack China, and maybe… Russia with. For the vast bulk of territory that is valuable to China are the shipping lanes in the South China Sea.
So for nearly three decades the United States has invested billions of dollars in these systems, but no one knows about them.
Here we are going to discuss them, and indeed they are IMPRESSIVE. But keep in mind, no matter how impressive they are, and their capabilities are, they can be rendered absolutely and completely inert…
…and sink to the bottom of the South China Sea with one blast of a direct energy weapon. Weapons that completely and absolutely ring the entire Pacific basin near China.
You can have the best trained SEALs, and the most impressive weaponry, and the most excellent leadership, but it means nothing when you are trapped inside a steel tomb three miles beneath the ocean and your nuclear reactor is going into meltdown. Word to the wise.
So while I have no proof that this is what was going on, there is every reason to believe that it is this kind of thing that “spooked” the admirals to call off the invasion and “instigation” force and return home.
Never the less, the American capability is substantive, and for a military-technology geek, this stuff is superbly interesting.
Here’s a great article, and it is amazing. I want to give full and absolute credit to the source and the article author. Please take note. And also remember, like all reprints, they were edited to fit this venue and all credit to the author.
Today, the U.S. Navy’s quartet of converted Ohio class nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines, or SSGNs, are among America’s most powerful, in-demand, and flexible weapons. These giant and secretive submarines are known for their ability to carry up to 154 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles and dozens of special operations frogmen into contested territory to ply their quiet trade, but really, they are much, much more than that.
A decade and a half ago, the U.S. Navy was testing incredible new capabilities that it would subsequently integrate into its four yet to be converted SSGNs, including one highly elaborate, but obscure proof of concept exercise that solidified the SSGN concept for the seagoing service. Here is the story of how these vessels came to be and the highly unique, if not exotic capabilities, from drone mothership to command and control center, they possess.
The Genesis of the Ohio SSGN
The decision to covert Ohio class SSBNs into SSGNs originated with the 1994 Nuclear Posture Review, which determined that only 14 of the 18 Ohio class boats were necessary to meet the United States’ nuclear deterrence needs. Eight years later, the Navy began actually converting the four oldest Ohio class submarines – USS Florida, USS Georgia, USS Michigan, and USS Ohio – into the new configuration.
The Navy had considered a number of potential configuration options for the new SSGNs. The concept that the service finally settled on retained 22 of the 24 missile tubes found on Ohio SSBNs, but modified them so that they were unable to fire Trident D5 nuclear-tipped submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). Instead, each one would be able to launch up to seven BGM-109 Tomahawks using a Multiple All-Up-Round Canister (MAC) adapter. The SLBM fire control systems were similarly replaced with ones for the Tomahawk.
Tubes one and two on each of the four SSGNs would be completely replaced with lockout chambers so combat divers and Navy SEALs could enter and exit the submarine underwater. Personnel could also install a Dry Deck Shelter (DDS) to the top of the hull linked to either one of these modified tubes, or both if required, which could accommodate swimmer delivery vehicle (SDV) mini-submarines. As the name suggests, the DDS provides a fully enclosed, dry space to work in on the submarine’s deck, even while it is underwater.
The abortive Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS) was supposed to have been able to directly dock with either one of these lockout chambers, as well. The Navy canceled the ASDS program in 2009 after cost overruns and other major setbacks, including a fire that had destroyed the original prototype the year before.
With a DDS installed, a number of additional tubes on the SSGNs would also be blocked off, so the Navy decided to make tubes three through 10 reconfigurable into storage space, if necessary. A dedicated berthing area for a typical contingent of 66 special operators, with a surge capacity of up 102 personnel, was added in the reconfigured missile compartment, as well.
More recent reporting has indicated that a typical load for these submarines is around 100 Tomahawks. This most likely represents between 14 and 16 fully loaded tubes, which would equate to between 98 and 112 missiles in total. This would leave between six and eight tubes available for storage or other purposes, something we will come back to later on in the story.
Beyond that, the SSGN configuration had an all-new a dedicated special operations mission control center and associated mission planning spaces. It also included additional and improved sensor and communications antenna masts on the sail. Other modifications that would allow these submarines to better operate in shallower waters closer to shore, were also likely involved with the conversion.
A rich history of special mission submarines
The Navy had substantial past experience with employing submarines as special operations motherships and in the tactical strike role, to say nothing of using them as specialized covert intelligence gathering platforms, when it had crafted the requirements for the Ohio SSGNs. The ability of a submarine, in general, to transport personnel and materiel, as well as launch raiding parties ashore, while using its inherent capabilities to help avoid detection, was well established by the end of World War II.
Between the mid-1950s and early 1960s, the Navy, in cooperation with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and U.S. Air Force, had even used submarines to secretly launch radar-reflecting balloons to probe hostile air defense capabilities. You can read more about these operations in this past War Zone story.
By the Vietnam War, the Navy was using specially configured submarines to support special operations. These included Gato class USS Tunny and the first-in-class USS Grayback, both of which were diesel-electric submarines that had previously been configured to fire the Regulus nuclear-armed cruise missile.
The “hangars” on the decks of these submarines for the airplane-sized Regulus were well suited to modification into lockout chambers for swimmers and shelters for mini-submarines, just like the Ohio’s Trident tubes. In 1968, the Navy went so far as to designate them LPSSs, or amphibious transport submarines.
These boats supported special operations along the coast of North Vietnam and also helped gather intelligence. Grayback was notably involved in Operation Thunderhead in 1972, an attempt to rescue American aviators that the U.S. military believed had escaped from North Vietnam’s infamous Hanoi Hilton prison. Bad weather and other factors eventually led the Navy to abort the mission and SEALs and Underwater Demolition Team (UDT) members never made contact with any escapees.
One SEAL, U.S. Navy Lieutenant Melvin Spence Dry, died during the mission. The U.S. military only acknowledged the operation in 2008, at which time Dry received a posthumous Bronze Star.
In the decades after Vietnam, a number of Sturgeon class nuclear-powered attack submarines also served in similar special operations support roles. In something of prelude to the Ohio SSGNs, as part of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, or SALT I agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union in 1981, the Navy disabled the SLBM capabilities on a number of SSBNs, reclassifying them officially as attack submarines.
USS Sam Houston, USS John Marshall, USS Kamehameha, and USS James K. Polk – the first two belonging to the Ethan Allen class and the latter pair being from the Benjamin Franklin class – received further modifications that added DDSs to the top of the hull and dedicated spaces to carry embarked SEAL teams. These submarines continued sailing into the 1990s and Kamehameha was the last to leave service, with the Navy only decommissioning her in 2002.
A new kind of submarine mothership
Still, while the Navy had decades of experience with using submarines to support tactical operations, including special operations, at sea and onshore, the Ohio SSGNs aimed to be far more robust and flexible multi-mission platforms than any of these previous conversions.
As of 2004, the service was still very much fleshing out the specifics of the SSGN conversion and “writing the manual” on how to then employ these submarines. Georgia had become the main testbed for what was still very much an evolving concept, receiving a number of interim modifications including reconfigured internal mission spaces and additional data links and communications equipment. At that time, none of the four chosen Ohios had gone through the full conversion process and they were still years away from actually entering service in their new configuration.
“Two years from now, when we open the wrapping paper to see USS Georgia, a brand-spanking-new SSGN, we are going to need an instruction manual,” U.S. Navy Commodore Robert Shuetz, then-commander of Submarine Squadron 17, said at a change-of-command ceremony for the submarine in December 2004. “A manual that hasn’t been written yet; a manual that will describe in excruciating detail how this new ‘toy’ will be operated.”
“This is where the crew of Georgia has excelled,” Shuetz continued. “They have written the first instruction manual for how this ship and her three sisters, the ‘toys’ in demand by every combat commander, will be operated.”
Silent Hammer
Two months earlier, off the coast of San Diego, California, Georgia, even without anything near the full suite of capabilities outlined in the conversion plan, had demonstrated just what the SSGN configuration might be capable of as part of an experiment nicknamed Silent Hammer. To enhance the realism of the scenario, the Navy inserted this test into a larger exercise, called Trident Warrior, that involved an array of other submarines, ships, aircraft, drones, and special operations forces (SOF).
The Silent Hammer scenario, which lasted a little over a week, involved a joint task force with Georgia in the lead locating and neutralizing mock terrorists on land and at sea. The “red team” occupied various sites on San Clemente Island, situated some 80 miles west of San Diego, which the U.S. military routinely uses for exercise and other test purposes. The contractor-operated offshore support vessel, the R/V Acoustic Explorer, also served as a simulated maritime threat.
The overall objective of the exercise for the “blue team” was to find and fix these faux militants using a variety of intelligence sources and then neutralize them with simulated Tomahawk strikes.
During the experiment, at least publicly, the focus was far more on the submarine’s ability to act as an intelligence-collection platform, as well as a broader “clandestine sea-base” that would provide a “headquarters node from which command and control operations and logistic support were conducted,” including for special operators ashore.
“Our converted Tridents will generate their own intelligence, which allows onboard commanders to make decisions about what’s needed and determine what additional organic sensors should be deployed in virtually any scenario,” by-then-retired U.S. Navy Admiral Frank “Skip” Bowman wrote, referring to the Ohios collectively by the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missiles that the SSBN versions carry, said in the Winter 2005 edition of Undersea Warfare magazine, the official publication of the U.S. Navy’s Submarine Force. Bowman’s last position in the service had been as Director of Naval Nuclear Propulsion.
“Silent Hammer demonstrated how a networked force, including sea-based SOF from an SSGN, can fill joint gaps – Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance (ISR) and Time Sensitive Strike – by conducting large-scale clandestine operations, supported by advanced unmanned systems, to reduce risk and increase capability,” U.S. Navy Captain J.S. Davidson, who headed up the Silent Hammer experiment, had explained in another interview for another story in that same issue of Undersea Warfare.
An intelligence nerve center
It’s hard to overstate how significant the intelligence fusion capabilities demonstrated during Silent Hammer were. For the experiment, Georgia had an embarked joint service command team onboard, who used modified spaces in the submarine to run a forward operations center that controlled other assets under the waves, riding on the surface, in the air, and on land. This was intended to reflect the capabilities that the submarine would have after going through the SSGN conversion, which would create new, more robust mission spaces for command and control elements and intelligence gathering personnel, among others.
This was the first time the Navy had ever done this as part of the development of the SSGN concept of operations and it put the operational commanders right in the thick of things in a whole new way. Unlike traditional surface command ships, such as the USS Blue Ridge, the Georgia was allowing these officers and their staff to direct forward operations while sailing concealed below the surface of the ocean. The submarine’s command center was linked to rear command centers, and their intelligence networks, via satellite. It also had direct data-link feeds from a number of other sources.
In the air, these included the Pelican, a highly modified, pilot-optional Cessna 337 propeller-driven aircraft, and a specially configured Sabreliner twin-engine business jet. The Pelican belonged to the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School’s Center for Interdisciplinary Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Studies (CIRPAS) and was configured at the time in a way that matched the capabilities of the MQ-1 Predator drone. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) Lincoln Laboratory operated the Sabreliner as a surrogate for smaller, lower-altitude unmanned aircraft.
The Lincoln Lab also had their heavily modified Boeing 707 airliner, nicknamed Hannah, a well-known cutting-edge communications and sensor testbed, in the air playing the role of a airborne radar with synthetic aperture and ground-moving-target indicator capabilities. This effectively made it, in part, a surrogate for a U.S. Air Force E-8C Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (JSTARS) battlefield management command and control aircraft.
Navy EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare planes and EP-3E Aries II intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft also took part in Trident Warrior and fed information into this network of information sources.
Down below, Georgia was networked together with other vessels taking part in Trident Warrior, including two Los Angeles class fast attack submarines, the USS La Jolla and USS Pittsburgh. In addition, members of the Silent Hammer experiment team were on board the first in class amphibious assault ship USS Tarawa and the Wasp class USS Bonhomme Richard, which were also taking part in the larger exercise.
Ashore, U.S. Navy SEALs, along with other unspecified attached special operators, likely including U.S. Air Force Joint Tactical Air Controllers (JTAC), were in direct contact with Georgia. They emplaced their own “unattended” sensors to monitor for potential hostile activity and otherwise fed even more data back to the submarine.
We also know that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) supplied unspecified payloads, as well as sensor systems for the exercise. Georgia itself demonstrated how she might launch unmanned aircraft and an unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV) during the exercise to support intelligence collection efforts. We will talk more about these shadowy developments later on.
Data fusion pioneers
The amount of intelligence information collected during the exercise was staggering. The supporting aircraft, ground sensors, and other offboard sensors collected more than 21,000 individual images during the exercise. In total, the task force created nearly 11 gigabytes of data, including thousands of textual alerts and nearly 3,000 actual intelligence “products,” such as PowerPoint presentations distilling various pieces of information, according to an article in a 2007 edition of the Lincoln Laboratory Journal.
Unfortunately, this wealth of information also risked being overwhelming. So, the Navy and the Lincoln Lab had also developed a computerized and heavily automated network system, state-of-the-art for the time, that allowed the command center onboard Georgia to rapidly parse through the mountains of available information for the most relevant data and only download what they needed in full. Being able to avoid downloading unnecessary information was particularly important given the bandwidth limitations in the data links available between the submarine and its various offboard information sources, especially 15 years ago.
Silent Hammer planners, as well as the Lincoln Lab, had been acutely aware of data sharing issues based on lessons learned from a smaller SSGN developmental experiment in 2003, nicknamed Giant Shadow, which involved the USS Florida and took place in and around the secretive Atlantic Undersea Test and Evaluation Center, or AUTEC, off the coast of Andros Island in the Bahamas. Similar to the Silent Hammer scenario, Giant Shadow centered on an operation to destroy a chemical weapons plant that mock terrorists were operating on shore.
“We can get this [imagery] real-time down to the submarine,” U.S. Navy Captain William Toti, then commander of the Florida, said in an interview at the time with “60 Minutes” on CBS News. “The SEALs can look at it real-time as they’re planning their missions, and have a better sense of what’s going on.”
The problem in that exercise, as it turned out, had been that there quickly became too much information for personnel on the submarine to sift through and process in real-time. “The providers, not the consumers, decided what information to transmit and when, which created a situation whereby analysts were overloaded with processing extraneous information, yet still had insufficient information for decision support,” according to the 2017 Lincoln Laboratory Journal article.
The flow of information during Silent Hammer was better, but still showed room for improvement. The vast quantities of data meant that it was still easy for intelligence officers to miss important new developments as they did their best to prioritize the efforts. Of the more than 21,000 images that various platforms collected during the exercise, less than 7,000 made their way into the networked database and “blue team” personnel only ever looked at 361 of them at any resolution, downloading just 45 of them in full for more extensive analysis. Still, the task force that Georgia led was ultimately able to find all of the simulated threats and successfully carry out the mock strikes to neutralize them.
Secretive payloads
For how much is known about Georgia’s participation in Silent Hammer, as well as the overall scope and scale of the intelligence gathering and networking systems employed during the exercise, there is little information about the testing of the submarine’s capabilities to launch underwater unmanned vehicles (UUVs) and unmanned aircraft.
It’s not clear what type or types of UUVs participated in Silent Hammer, or if Georgia deployed any of them herself. However, during the earlier Giant Shadow exercise, Florida had become the first Navy submarine to launch and recover the Seahorse Autonomous Undersea Vehicle (AUV) via a modified missile tube. It is very possible that this undersea drone took part in Silent Hammer, as well.
The Applied Research Laboratory (ARL) at the Pennsylvania State University had begun development of Seahorse in 1999 under contract to the Naval Oceanographic Office, or NAVOCEANO. At 28 and a half feet long and weighing 10,800 pounds, this underwater drone was more than 10 feet longer than a Mk 48 heavyweight torpedo and just over 7,100 pounds heavier.
Its main job was undersea mapping using a variety of sensors, including multi-beam bathymetric and synthetic aperture sonars, an Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) and a Conductivity, Temperature and Depth (CTD) sensor. Those same sensors could be used to scout out mines and other potential underwater hazards and, in the decades since the Navy took delivery of Seahorse, the service has acquired and fielded a large number of increasingly more capable torpedo-shaped UUVs of various sizes for mapping and mine clearance missions, among others.
The Flexible Payload Module
Georgia didn’t actually launch any unmanned aircraft during Silent Hammer, according to the Navy, but did release two Stealthy Affordable Capsule System (SACS) canisters, each containing an “inert test shape simulating a UAV,” from a Flexible Payload Module (FPM) installed in one of the submarine’s missile tubes.
Since the 1990s, the Navy had been very interested in the idea of pairing unmanned aircraft with submarines to expand the ability of the boats to scout ahead and collect intelligence. Drones working with subs could also act as communications and data relays, probe and collect information on enemy defenses, and potentially even strike targets themselves. For example, in March 1996, the Los Angeles class attack submarine USS Chicago took part in a demonstration in which it tested its ability to both communicate with and actively control an early example of what was then known as the RQ-1 Predator.
Development of the FPM dates back to at least 2000, when the Navy tasked two separate industry consortiums with crafting concepts for future submarines designs, as well as payloads and sensors for them, with an eye toward technologies that could be operational in the years to come. The Navy and DARPA managed this project, aptly named Submarine Payloads and Sensors, cooperatively.
Northrop Grumman, a member of Team 2020, one of the consortiums, which Lockheed Martin headed up, developed the FPM. General Dynamics Electric Boat, the United States’ premier submarine builder, which had built the Ohios, among others, and was involved in the development of the Virginia class attack submarine at the time, was also part of Team 2020.
The FPM was effectively an insert that would slot into a large diameter ballistic missile tube on a submarine, but could be adapted to hold multiple payloads, including numerous unmanned aircraft, that the crew could then launch independently. General Dynamics Electric Boat described it as a “plug and fight” system.
Northrop Grumman designed the first iteration, which had 10 14-inch tubes and a pair of larger 20-inch ones, specifically around the dimensions of the Ohio’s missile tubes. The second FPM prototype, which Georgia carried during Silent Hammer, had only three tubes of an unknown diameter. Each one of those could accommodate a payload inside a SACS, another Northrop Grumman development.
“The FPM and SACS comprise an encapsulation system that facilitates the launch of non-marinized payloads and weapons from a submarine,” according to the article on Silent Hammer from the Winter 2005 issue of Undersea Warfare. “This allows the use of Navy air- or surface-launched payloads – plus those from other services – without the need to redesign them for launching in an undersea environment.”
SACS was “adaptable for long-term storage, variable release depths, launching under broaching or surface-loitering conditions, and the ability to encapsulate small or large payloads,” according that same article.
“In the case of the SUAV [submarine-launched unmanned air vehicle], SACS rises buoyantly to the surface, a sensor in the capsule detects broach, the SACS end-cap is blown away, and the SUAV booster ignites to clear the water and build vertical speed,” notes from a presentation that Steve Weinstein and William McGannon gave at the National Defense Industry Association’s (NDIA) 2002 Joint Undersea Warfare Technology Spring Conference explains. “At the proper moment, the SUAV wings are extended from alongside its long slender body to the horizontal position, the flight control software tilts the SUAV over to the horizontal flight position and once in stable flight, the SUAV turns and climbs to the pre-planned altitude to begin its mission.”
At the time, Weinstein and McGannon were employed with the Naval Sea Systems Command’s (NAVSEA) Submarine Sensor Systems division.
The other industry collective that had taken part in the Submarine Payloads and Sensors program, called Forward Payloads And Sensors for Submarines (Forward PASS), had developed a similar system, known as the Broaching Universal Buoyant Launcher (BUBL), that worked in much the same manner. However, BUBL’s design was meant to work with a variety of existing launcher options on submarines, including torpedo tubes and countermeasures launchers, or even be carried externally. Of course, the external carriage option could have created performance problems or increased the sub’s acoustic signature, making it more vulnerable.
Raytheon was the team leader for Forward PASS, which also included Boeing and Pennsylvania State’s Applied Research Laboratory, among others. General Dynamics Electric Boat was part of both teams in order to provide its extensive knowledge base to help with submarine development and integration questions. There is no mention of Georgia employing BUBL during Silent Hammer.
Submarine-launched drones
While we don’t know what drones Georgia was supposed to have been simulating the launch of from the FPM specifically, Northrop Grumman had also already developed at least one submarine-launched drone known as Sea Ferret in the 1990s. This was an evolution of Ferret, which the company had originally developed for the U.S. Army.
The Sundstrand TJ50 turbojet-powered Ferrets and Sea Ferrets are what we would call loitering munitions today. The approximately 145-pound drones carried both electro-optical sensor packages and 20-pound warheads and could fly out to a maximum range of around 370 nautical miles and a top speed of 300 knots and still be able to orbit around a target area for around two hours.
In December 1996, the USS Asheville, another Los Angeles class attack submarine, simulated launching the Sea Ferret during a technology demonstration. A Cessna 206 light aircraft carried one of the drones under its wing to then simulate the unmanned aircraft in flight. Northrop Grumman had intended the final system, which the Navy did not ultimately adopt, to be torpedo tube-launched using a modified canister for a UGM-84 submarine-launched Harpoon anti-ship cruise missile.
Still, the 1996 test “successfully simulated organic and inorganic UAV operations & SOF support,” according to Weinstein and McGannon 2002 NDIA presentation. It is certainly possible that Northrop Grumman could have developed a follow-on of some sort to Sea Ferret at the time of Silent Hammer.
We also know that the Navy had been holding workshops and other defense industry engagement events to gauge options for submarine-launched unmanned aircraft starting in 2000, around the same time as the Submarine Payloads and Sensors initiative. A slide from a General Dynamics Electric Boat briefing at the 2006 NDIA Systems Engineer Conference, which also touches on the Flexible Payload Module (FPM) development, shows concept art for at least five different potential submarine-launched drone designs.
By 2002, a team that included General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, AeroVironment, and Kollmorgen, had also demonstrated a modified Universal Modular Mast that could shoot small unmanned aircraft into the sky from periscope depth. An artist’s conception of the system shows a drone design virtually identical to the Blackwing, which AeroVironment officially began developing four years later for the Navy as a submarine-launched system.
In his guidance for 2005, then Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark had also called for a follow-on Silent Hammer II exercise that “should employ aerial sensors (UAVs) in addition to ground sensors and exercise full range connectivity links.” It’s not clear if Clark had wanted to demonstrate a true submarine-launched drone capability or if that exercise ever ultimately occurred.
Lockheed Martin’s mysterious Cormorant
Of all the submarine-launched unmanned aircraft in development around the time of Silent Hammer, by far, the most interesting was Lockheed Martin’s shadowy Cormorant, a product of the company’s Skunk Works advanced design division. DARPA managed this program, also known as the Multi-Purpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (MPUAV), which sought to develop a relatively large, stealthy, jet-powered drone that a submarine could both launch and recover.
Patent documents show that Cormorant was in development at least as early as 2004. A subsequent official Lockheed Martin video presentation on the Cormorant makes clear that, while DAPRA was officially in charge of the project, it was informed, at least in part, by Navy requirements relating to the Ohio SSGNs.
“The Navy came to us for our concepts for a wide range of unmanned aircraft that could operate from aircraft carriers or surface ships or even submarines,” Bob Ruszkowski, then-Lockheed Martin’s MPUAV Team Project Manager and Technical Lead, said in the video. “This idea was unique in that it was the first time someone had thought about the idea of launching and recovering the vehicle while the submarine was still submerged.”
The Cormorant, in concept, would be launched from a modified missile tube on an Ohio class SSGN at a depth of up to 150 feet and then float the surface “like a cork,” according to Ruszkowski. Rocket boosters would then propel the four-ton, titanium-skinned craft into the air, a traditional turbofan jet engine would take over. During launch, as well as recovery, the intakes and exhausts for the engine would be sealed off from the water.
“The aircraft uses its stealth and mission planning to penetrate hostile airspace,” Ruszkowski continued. “Once it’s in there, it can do a variety of missions, that could be collecting intelligence and reconnaissance on weapons of mass destruction sites, it could be supporting special operations forces. But whatever it’s doing, it’s using its stealth and its mission planning to avoid detection.”
One patent that Lockheed Martin filed in 2004 regarding Cormorant included artwork depicting the drone releasing weapons, suggesting that Lockheed Martin, DARPA, and the Navy may have been considering a strike role from the drone, as well. A Lockheed Martin briefing from 2005 describes the unmanned aircraft as being capable of carrying a 1,000-pound payload in a modular bay, which could include sensors, communications relay systems, and even supplies that it could drop to personnel at a designated drop zone.
After completing its mission, it would return to a rendezvous point and deploy a parachute, landing safely in the water. The submarine would then send out its own tethered remotely operated vehicle to attach a cable to the drone and reel it back in.
It’s unclear how far the program progressed, but we do know that Lockheed Martin conducted a number of disclosed tests, including releasing a test article from a simulated launch tube underwater, dropping that test article into the water, and evaluating the recovery concept that Ruszkowski had described in the video.
Theoretically, Cormorant could have worked using a launcher mounted on a surface ship, as well. The 2004 patent shows an artist’s conception of a surface ship releasing a Cormorant off the side.
Publicly, DARPA canceled development of Cormorant, ostensibly due to budget cuts, in 2008. It’s not clear whether development of the system continued on afterward, possibly in the classified realm, under a different program. Discussions about the unmanned aircraft, or its underlying concepts, virtually evaporated, even from Skunk Works, which had been promoting the project heavily up until then.
In 2009, Lockheed Martin didfile another patent relating to an unmanned aircraft that could be launched and recovered in the water. This application described a system that used an electric ducted fan both for self-propelled operation in the water, as well as in the air. The concept art curious shows an aircraft shaped like an early Cold War Soviet MiG-15, which was reportedly because Lockheed Martin had utilized a modified radio-controlled model of one of these aircraft to test the electric fan propulsion system.
The Ohio class SSGNs enter service
For as open as the Navy was in the early 2000s about the book it was writing on how to employ the Ohio SSGNs, and what capabilities they might have as a result of their refits and in the future, since they actually entered service toward the end of that decade there has been relatively little information about how they have been putting that doctrine into action. Ohio was the first to rejoin the fleet, with General Dynamics Electric Boat delivering the converted submarine on Dec. 17, 2005. A ceremony to mark its return to service occurred nearly two months later.
Florida and Michigan followed on Apr. 8 and Nov. 22, 2006, respectively. For unclear reasons, Michigan did not have her official return to service ceremony until June 2007. Georgia was the last to arrive on Dec. 18, 2007.
The bulk of the official news reporting about these four boats has been primarily concerned with deployments, returns to home port, port visits, and general announcements about their participation in exercises. “The missions that we do are very exciting and challenging,” U.S. Navy Captain Murray Gero, then the commanding officer of the Ohio’s Blue crew, said in one typical pre-deployment story in 2009.
“We typically go to sea with over 100 tomahawk missiles, and that basically replaces a tomahawk missile inventory of three surface warships,” he continued, focusing on the time-sensitive strike mission. “This increases the flexibility of the surface fleet, because we basically allow them to reassign those three ships as soon as we get into our operating theater.”
The Captain did add that the boat was capable of other missions, including intelligence gathering and special operations support, and that “they are very complex, and they involve very close coordination with several outside agencies, including SEALS.” He didn’t offer any more specific details, though.
Conventional deterrence and actual combat
We do know that the boats have flexed their strike muscles both for deterrent purposes and during actual operations. In 2010, Florida, Michigan, and Ohio nearly simultaneously made port visits at Diego Garcia in the India Ocean, in Busan in South Korea, and in Subic Bay in the Philippines, respectively, in what some observers took to be a show of force aimed at China.
“This demonstrated that these platforms offer signaling capabilities that other conventional missile systems lack,” Forrest E. Morgan, a political scientist at the RAND Corporation think tank wrote about these events in a study in 2013. “Yet, one might doubt whether U.S. leaders would even allow SSGNs to surface while on patrol in an engagement zone during a crisis when doing so might put them at risk of attack.”
In 2011, Florida also notably took part in the open stages of Operation Odyssey Dawn, the NATO-led intervention into Libya that led to the ouster and death of long-time leader Muammar Gaddafi. The submarine fired 93 Tomahawks over the course of the operation, 90 of which hit their targets.
“By virtue of their concealment and endurance, the SSGN platform forces our adversaries to consider that they could be operating almost anywhere at any time,” then-Vice Admiral John Richardson, Commander of Naval Submarine Forces at the time, said upon Florida’s return to its homeport at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in Georgia on Apr. 29, 2011. “The sensor suite on the boat allows the captain to gather information and intelligence in situ, passing that back to the commander and responding on the spot. When you combine all that with the tremendous combat capability the boat brings – land attack missiles, special forces, torpedoes – that’s a lot of bets the enemy has to cover down on.”
Richardson subsequently became Director of Naval Nuclear Propulsion and then Chief of Naval Operations, the service’s top uniformed officer. He retired in August 2019.
In 2017, Michigan had appeared again in Busan at a time of heightened tensions with North Korea, which was also seen as a signal to the regime in Pyongyang. U.S. President Trump had also revealed and highlighted the submarine’s presence in the region as a counter to North Korean aggression in a telephone conversion with his counterpart in the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, which subsequently leaked out into the press. Michigan did go on to conduct exercises with the Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson and her associated Carrier Strike Group, which had also deployed the region.
Earlier in November 2019, ABC News‘ “Nightline” aired a segment in which David Muir got to spend a day aboard Florida, which is presently operating in the Mediterranean Sea on what was described as a “classified mission.” Muirs interviews with U.S. Navy Rear Admiral William Houston and Captain Seth Burton offered some additional insights into the SSGN operations. Houston is presently tripled-hatted as Director of Plans and Operations for U.S. Naval Forces Europe/U.S. Sixth Fleet, the Deputy Commander of Sixth Fleet, and the Commander of Submarine Group Eight. Burton is the current commander of the Florida.
“We’ve put this submarine right in this area of the eastern portion of the Mediterranean to counterbalance the Russian buildup in Syria,” Houston told Muir. “We’re watching them [the Russians] very very closely. There’s really not a day where we’re not watching them, every single day.”
“If you just look at the region and you’ve got ISIS in Northern Africa, you’ve got what’s going on on the Turkey Syria border right now, the fact that you’re here in the Mediterranean, does that give you a set of silent eyes for the U.S.?” Muir asked Burton. “Absolutely. It gives them eyes where no one knows that they’re being looked at,” he replied.
#USNavy silent service in action! Rare look at the Ohio-class fleet guided-missile submarine #USSFlorida operating in @USNavyEurope AOR. Florida, is capable of conducting clandestine strike operations, carrier and expeditionary strike group operations, and more. #NavyLethalitypic.twitter.com/uiRgUpQSsw
We also know that the Ohio SSGNs regularly conduct intelligence gathering missions during their patrols and work together with SEAL teams and other special operations forces on a routine basis around the world. As Captain Murray Gero noted back in 2009, these boats offer their crews unique experiences and they are among the hottest boats to get on in the fleet.
New capabilities?
If operational information about the Ohio class SSGNs is limited, then details about upgrades and new technologies for these boats have been even scarcer. This stands in stark contrast to how open the Navy had been about the capabilities of these converted submarines early on and how willing it had been to discuss what it might have in store for them in the future, including the drones and UUVs, both of which have seen quantum leaps in the expansion of their capabilities over the last decade and a half.
We do know that by the late 2000s, the Navy was integrating a signals intelligence collection system, called Radiant Gemstone, onto at least some Los Angeles class attack submarines, which you can read about more in this past War Zone piece. This came along with the necessary data links and software backend, known as Radiant Mercury, to rapidly exchange that information with the National Security Agency.
“The RADMERC [Radiant Mercury] program facilitates sharing of critical information across security domains and among allied, coalition and inter-agency partners,” an official list of the Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command’s (SPAWAR) programs as of 2017 explained. “The Radiant Mercury product provides cross-domain information sharing capabilities from Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) to General Service (GENSER) and GENSER to Unclassified.”
This sounds very much like an evolution of the data sharing systems and concepts of operation that Georgia pioneered during Silent Hammer. It also seems like an ideal addition to the SSGNs that would align well with their known intelligence gathering and fusion capabilities, if they didn’t have it already, and may well be an extension of developments that first appeared on the converted Ohios.
The Universal Launch and Recovery Module
We also know that the Flexible Payload Module (FPM) evolved, at least in part, into the Universal Launch and Recovery Module (ULRM), also known as the Universal Launch and Retrieval Module. General Dynamics Electric Boat has described this system as primarily being intended to launch and recover various types of UUVs, including Seahorse, Seaglider, and the Bluefin 21.
The Bluefin 21 became well known world-wide after taking part in the search for the remains of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 in 2014. The U.S. Navy subsequently adopted a derivative of this UUV, the Knifefish, primarily for mine hunting missions.
The modified Trident missile tubes would be able to accommodate racks that could launch and recover a number of these relatively small UUVs at once. General Dynamics Electric Boat envisioned the possibility of an SSGN deploying entire swarms of networked underwater drones to conduct persistent surveillance missions across a broad area as one possible application. There were also plans to eventually integrate larger underwater drones into the system.
General Dynamics Electric Boat did not specifically say that this system could launch unmanned aircraft from submarines, but it is possible that it could have been adapted to deploy encapsulated drones. The same system might similarly be able to deploy other payloads, as well, such as mines or decoy balloons.
As it was working on the ULRM, the company also said that it was developing an improved storage module that would be more readily transportable and installable. This, in principle, would have allowed more tailored special operations force packages to rapidly deploy to a forward port to rendezvous with one of the submarines for a specific mission.
There was also talk about another module that could contain additional masts with sensors or potentially for deploying additional payloads, such as drones. The modular nature of these systems combined with the large number of missile tubes on the SSGNs offered the potential to readily mix and match capabilities that would be best suited to the boat’s operational needs.
In 2013, the Navy said that it would test a prototype ULRM onboard one of the Ohio class SSGNs the following year. The goal at that time was to have examples available for actual operational use by 2019, but it’s unclear if this has occurred or not.
Upward Falling Payloads And Hydra
In 2013, DARPA itself initiated a new program to explore the possibility of launch small unmanned aircraft from capsules that could lie on the seabed, dormant and potentially unknown to potential opponents, for years at a time. A submarine could potentially deploy them covertly, as well, a mission that seems well suited to the SSGN concept of operation.
Known as Upward Falling Payloads (UFP), this project envisioned a system that American forces could activate remotely, or that might be triggered automatically in some fashion, and then release its payload. “Such a system of pre-positioned, deep-sea nodes could enable a full range of maritime mission sets that are more cost-effective than existing manned or long-range unmanned naval assets,” DARPA’s archived page for the project explains. UFP is also reminiscent of the Broaching Universal Buoyant Launcher (BUBL) system from a decade earlier, but it’s not clear if there is any actual direct relationship between the two projects.
At the same time, DARPA was working on this seabed payload launcher concept, it was also exploring a modular, standardized payload module that could work with submarines, as well as aircraft and surface ships, called Hydra. This could deploy either unmanned aircraft or UUVs and sounds similar in some respects to the Stealthy Affordable Capsule System (SACS). Again, it is unclear if there was any direct relationship between these two efforts.
Both UFP and Hydra appear to have come to an end sometime between 2016 and 2017. As with Cormorant, it’s not immediately clear if these continued on in some other form, including in the classified realm.
In 2013, the Navy itself had successfully demonstrated the ability to launch an encapsulated unmanned aircraft via a submarine’s torpedo tube. The Los Angeles class USS Providence (SSN-719) deployed the Naval Research Laboratory’s eXperimental Fuel Cell Unmanned Aerial System, or XFC UAS, using a launch system known as Sea Robin, which used a modified Tomahawk missile launch canister. That same year, the service said it was also actively testing AeroVironment’s Blackwing using the standard three-inch countermeasures launchers on its submarines.
More capable than we know
All told, it seems very possible, if not probable, that the capabilities of the Ohio class SSGNs have significantly expanded since Silent Hammer in 2004, even if the specifics are limited. Even without new systems, such as the Universal Launch and Recovery Module, the Ohio SSGNs have already been using their modified Trident launch tubes to deploy unmanned systems and for other novel purposes, including just acting as valuable storage space within the confines of the submarines.
The intelligence collection and fusion systems that Georgia had in 2004, even before its full conversion into the SSGN configuration, were state-of-the-art. More than a decade of improvements in basic computing technology and processing power, as well as new developments in data links and communications systems, including new ways for submarines to transmit and receive information, can only have drastically expanded those already impressive capabilities.
UUV and drone technology has also come a long way, both in general and within the Navy specifically. The service, by itself, has made significant progress in submarine-launched drones, drone swarm technology, and autonomous capabilities that apply to unmanned platforms in the air, at sea, and underneath the waves. Just this year, the Navy hired Boeing to build a new fleet of large displacement UUVs as part of a program called Orca, which you can read about in more detail in this past War Zone piece. All of this aligns well with the SSGN’s capabilities, and the Navy’s long-standing plans to expand them, as we understand it.
The Navy has also been quietly working on a new and revolutionary electronic warfare architecture, known as the Netted Emulation of Multi-Element Signature against Integrated Sensors, or NEMESIS, since at least 2013. The service has described this effort, which you can read about in-depth in this past War Zone feature, as involving swarms of unmanned platforms, various systems on ships and submarines, countermeasures and electronic warfare suites, and more that could combine to project signatures mimicking large groups of aircraft, surface ships, and subs.
The Ohio SSGNs present an ideal platform for deploying elements of and supporting this cutting-edge and critical initiative. Most notably, they could launch swarms of small electronic-warfare payload-carrying drones deep in enemy territory that can project false fleets and aerial armadas on enemy sensors and act as decoys during a time of war or probe and gather intelligence on enemy air defense networks during a time of peace. Launching radar-reflector carrying balloons, a 60-year-old proven tactic, could also be part of this capability. In fact, we know of no better platform to carry out such a task.
The Ohio SSGNs could also see the integration of new conventional weapons to support their time-sensitive strike mission, and otherwise expand their offensive capabilities, in the future, as well. The Navy is already working on a number of new and upgraded missiles that could have submarine-launched applications, such as the multi-purpose SM-6 Block IB, a highly classified supersonic anti-ship missile known as Sea Dragon, and the future Next Generation Strike Weapon. The Navy has also already test-fired prototype submarine-launched hypersonic boost-glide vehicles from Ohio class submarines under the Conventional Prompt Strike program, though it’s unclear if it may choose to deploy those only on those submarines configured as SSBNs.
Smaller weapons could dramatically increase the boats’ already impressive magazine depth. The extra capacity could give the submarines more diversity in their arsenals, allowing them to engage broader target sets, as well. European missile consortium MBDA’s SPEAR 3 mini-cruise missile and its SPEAR-EW variant, which carries an electronic warfare payload instead of a warhead, are good examples of the kind of miniaturized missiles that could be extremely valuable additions to the Ohio SSGNs.
The Navy has also been putting these converted Ohios through major refits, which serve as an opportunity to integrate even more new capabilities. Georgia left the dry dock at Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay in March 2019 and Ohiofinished her stint at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard & Intermediate Maintenance Facility in Washington State in August. Michigan is set to return to the fleet in 2020. It is not clear when Florida, which is presently deployed in the Mediterranean, will go through the process. These overhauled SSGNs likely represent a whole new level of capability derived from lessons learned over the last decade and a half of operations.
Successors to the Ohio SSGNs
Unfortunately, the Ohios SSGNs won’t be able to serve forever, they are already the oldest Ohio class submarines in existence, and the Navy is already exploring concepts for what comes next. The experience with these four boats has directly informed the development of the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) for the future Block V Virginia class attack submarines.
The VPM has four large multi-purpose tubes that can accept various modules just like the modified Trident missile tubes on the Ohio SSGNs, including the same seven-round Tomahawk launchers. The designs of the existing Block III and future Block IV Virginia class boats also already feature two similarly-sized Virginia Payload Tubes (VPT) in the bow of the submarine.
As such, the VPTs already bring some of the multi-mission capability found on the SSGNs to the Block III Virginias and this will only be more pronounced on the Block IV boats. The Navy has already set aside at least four Block II and III Virginia class submarines for special operations support missions, with two more available as alternates, if required.
These six Virginias – USS Hawaii, USS Mississppi, USS New Hampshire, USS New Mexico, USS North Carolina, and USS North Dakota – can also carry the same types of Dry Deck Shelters (DDS) as the Ohio SSGNs. All of these submarines actually share a common pool of DDSs that Navy personnel can install on any of the boats, as necessary.
The Navy’s present plan is to fully replace the Ohio SSGNs with Block IV Virginias by 2026, though, especially given the recent refits, its possible that the former boats could end up remaining in service longer. It’s not clear whether older Virginias would continue to serve int he special operations support role, as well.
Beyond that, the Navy is already exploring options for what it presently refers to as Large Payload Submarines, which will be a future class of multi-purpose, multi-mission boats derived from the Columbia class SSBN design that will be capable of, as the name implies, deploying a wide variety of large payloads. This could include both UUVs and submarine-launched drones. The submarines could also have the ability to deploy networked swarms of these unmanned platforms above or below the waves.
At present, the Navy plans to buy a minimum of five Large Payload Submarines, but it’s not clear when they might actually enter service. The current schedule would be to buy one every three years starting in 2036, after the initial Columbia class production run, totaling 12 boats, ends.
However, there are already concerns about how expensive and complex the Columbias are, each of which will cost more than $7 billion, and whether General Dynamics Electric Boat and Newport News Shipbuilding will be able to keep to the schedule. This, in turn, could push plans for the Large Payload Submarines further into the future. You can read more about all this in-depth in this past War Zone story.
More than 15 years after Georgia wrote the first few chapters in the book on Ohio class SSGN concepts of operations, the U.S. Navy’s four SSGNs remain some of the most unique and capable platforms within the Pentagon’s portfolio, and that is just based on what we know about their abilities. By every indication, these submarines have and continue to serve as testbeds for even more impressive developments that still have yet to become public.
Just think, if the ability to launch various drones, both air and sea types, and especially higher-end ones like the Skunk Works’ Cormorant, was very much in development on multiple fronts 15 years ago, just imagine what is deployed today or on the drawing board. If an SSGN can carry up to 154 Tomahawk missiles, how many small weaponized drones can it carry and how could an enemy ever defend against such an overwhelming onslaught crossing their shores? It is this type of imagination and the room to realize such dreams that have made these submarines so valuable and, for lack of a better term, revolutionary.
It’s safe to say that the Navy’s SSGNs are a case of “more than meets the eye,” as they are much more than the stealthy Tomahawk slingers and SEAL delivery platforms that the public perceives them to be. While their arsenal of cruise missiles and frogmen is certainly formidable, their ability to adapt, spy on the enemy, control the battle from under the waves, and above all else, accommodate new ideas, makes them uniquely ferocious to any enemy nation they may be sitting off of at any given moment.
Conclusion
What an article! Ok. Please keep in mind that the best made weapons and technology is meaningless when the environment that you expect to use it in has altered and changed. Which is China. They DO NOT PLAY.
You might amass all your forces on a plain. Everyone wearing the best and strongest armor. Your men might have the best training and the horse might be the most loyal and robust in the world. But that means nothing when a wall of water comes crashing down and wipes out your forces.
China is a nation that is not only four to five time larger in population, but it is merit driven. And not just merit in the ability to dispute diversity issues, or numbers on a tabulated spreadsheet, but real hard and fast (hard scrabble) abilities.
They are formidable, and especially now that China and Russia and Iran are all linked together militarily as one. The USA had best stop playing with the boyhood toys and grow up. It’s a new game, and a new way of doing things. The best thing that the USA can do is “get with the program” and adapt, or die though extinction.
You’ll not find any big banners or popups here talking about cookies and privacy notices. There are no ads on this site (aside from the hosting ads – a necessary evil). Functionally and fundamentally, I just don’t make money off of this blog. It is NOT monetized. Finally, I don’t track you because I just don’t care to.
There’s this belief (in the West) that China is so God-darn awful that it “need’s to be put in it’s place”, and that a hot war with it is justified. American ships can sail freely in the South China Sea, and defend “democracy” in Taiwan, and Hong Kong. You know to stop the evil Chinese! It must happen soon! It must happen Now! Freedom is at stake! Now. Now! NOWWW!
It’s all bullshit.
It’s what you can expect for over four years of massively funded anti-China propaganda barraging the “news” with this nonsense. By now, most sheeple are “foaming at the mouth” ready to “kick some slant-eyed butt”. And the neocons are already planning how they will seize and then cart away the loot from a “ripe for the pickings” China.
Um.
MM readers know better.
A war against China over some nameless islands in the South China Sea to defend for “democracy” and “freedom” will result in nuclear destruction of the United States by the combined forces of Russia, China, and Iran. What ever remains standing will be subjugated in the most horrific manner. As in sacked. As in destroyed, enslaved, and subjugated so that English becomes a forgotten language that no one dares utter.
You would think that people would be aware of this. I mean, where does everyone think their electronics comes from? Silicon valley? Nope. It’s all made in China. Not just your iPhone (outsourced now to India, but the key components are still made in China and shipped to India), but all those fancy electronics in the top end military aircraft and missiles that America uses. F-22 key components. Made in China. iPhone internals. Made in China. Tesla car batteries. Made in China.
You would think that Americans would be aware. But they are not. And the neocons are just ready for a fight.
It will be their last.
I can say “watch out“, and the uneducated will respond “oh, let China try“. But all that bravado becomes meaningless when you haven’t eaten in weeks, your body is covered with pustules and sores, and all the water is radioactive. And you are engaged in a street battle between roving bands of urban youths riding brand new Toyota pickups with M134GAU-17GatlingGuns. All over some moldy turnips that rumor says that you hoarded before the war.
These neocons are insane and they believe what they tell each other.
The Rapture, in Christianity, the eschatological (concerned with the last things and Endtime) belief that both living and dead believers will ascend into heaven to meet Jesus Christ at the Second Coming (Parousia).
The belief in the Rapture emerged from the anticipation that Jesus would return to redeem all members of the church. The term rapture, however, appears nowhere in the New Testament. In his First Letter to the Thessalonians, the Apostle Paul wrote that the Lord will come down from heaven and that a trumpet call will precede the rise of “the dead in Christ” (4:16). Thereafter, “we who are still alive and are left will be caught up” (in Latin, rapio, the standard translation of Paul’s original Koine Greek) “together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (4:17). The Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) mention Jesus’ return to earth from heaven; e.g., The Gospel According to Mark cites Jesus as foretelling a “ ‘coming in clouds’ with great power and glory” (13:26).
Belief in the Rapture is often connected with a belief in the literal coming of the millennium, the 1,000-year rule of Jesus Christ after his return, as mentioned in chapter 20 of The Revelation to John (also known as The Book of Revelation), although there are also amillennial interpretations of the belief that reject that notion. There is also a divide among pre-tribulationists, who believe that the Rapture will occur before a period of tribulation on earth mentioned in Daniel (12:1) and Matthew (24:21) and preceding the End, and post-tribulationists, those who believe that it will come after that period. Finally, dispensationalism, the notion that God periodically enters into a new covenant with his people, has had some influence on the belief, insofar as some believers in the Rapture consider themselves to be dispensationalists.
Along with the epistles of Paul and the Revelation to John, apocalyptic literature and millennialist thinking have long maintained a hold on the Christian imagination, even when they have been variously interpreted or—in the case of millennialism—even rejected by some of the major figures in the history of Christian theology. The 16th-century movement called Futurism, expounded by the Jesuit Francisco Ribera, stressed the future fulfillment of the prophecy of the End as mentioned in scripture with both the rise of the Antichrist and the return of Christ. Another historical event whose ideas may have had some influence on the later evolution of the idea was the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony by Puritans seeking to build a “City upon a Hill” in anticipation of the Second Coming. The evangelical fervour of the Great Awakening (early 18th century) and Second Great Awakening (late 18th to early 19th century) in the United States widely promoted ideas about the millennium, about a new dispensation, and about the imminence of Christ’s return. The most famous of such thinkers was William Miller, whose prediction that the Second Coming would occur in 1843 inspired the subsequent formation of Adventist churches.
The idea of the Rapture persisted through the remainder of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century, gaining popularity among some evangelical and fundamentalist Christians as well as among some other Christian and even non-Christian new religious movements. During the Cold War, between the United States and the Soviet Union, particularly as the threat of nuclear war grew, prophecies about the Rapture gained currency. In the late 20th and early 21st centuries the idea was prominent in popular culture, in part because of the millennialist fervour that arose as the year 2000 approached. The so-called “Chick Pamphlets” (illustrated tracts authored by the evangelist Jack Chick) and the Left Behind (1995–2007) novel and movie franchise were two examples of that phenomenon. Meanwhile, Endtime prophecies promoting a specific date for the Rapture—most notably the two dates in 2011 predicted by the American evangelist Harold Camping—proliferated.
-The Rapture
You see, in their mind, world War III is a win-win.
[1] If they push and successfully create strife in the South China Sea, and it is limited to that region, they can capitalize upon it. Make money off it. And it can turn into a long-drawn out quagmire. Or fine money pipeline into their coffers.
[2] If the strife leaves the predetermined area of conflict, no problem. What’s China gonna do? Eh? They are no match for the Great and Powerful US! They USA could “just sit off the coast and launch cruse missiles and plink at the pitiful Chinese as they run from hidy-hole to hidy-hole”.
[3] Even if the worst came about; No problem, either. God has blessed the United States, and then Jesus will come down from heaven and save all the American believers, and let the rest of the earth cook into a poisonous stew of radioactivity and destruction. Good!
With Trump in office, and the appointment of key neocon radical fanatics, Their anti-China crusade went mainstream and has most of the Western allied world’s population hating the Chinese. Yeah, it’s destined to dissipate, but right now the PTB are using everything in their power to keep the hate alive. They are keeping this monster, this nightmare illusion, ALIVE!
Oh, baby! This is extremely dangerous.
This ideology calls on anointed “Christian” leaders to take over the state and make the goals and laws of the nation “biblical.” It seeks to reduce government to organizing little more than defense, internal security and the protection of property rights.
It fuses with the Christian religion the iconography and language of American imperialism and nationalism, along with the cruelest aspects of corporate capitalism.
The intellectual and moral hollowness of the ideology, its flagrant distortion and misuse of the Bible, the contradictions that abound within it — its leaders champion small government and a large military, as if the military is not part of government — and its laughable pseudoscience are impervious to reason and fact. And that is why the movement is dangerous.
-The Radical Christian Right
I cannot stress it enough. This kind of thinking is dangerous. And there are some very important people, in key positions in the American government which believes these insane narratives. They believe. They are real believers.
Yikes!
Now, from time to time, I come across something other than one of the major neocon articles that announce plans for the suppression of China, and how America will remain the dominant superpower in the world. They are few and far between. Seriously. But when you find one, it’s not only refreshing but discusses the reality.
Here is one such rare article. Read it slowly. Absorb it carefully. They are not trying to manipulate sheeple. They are not trying to justify anything. They are telling and stating things AS THEY ARE today. Not what they might be, or what they wish to become.
And while they urge you to participate to “spread the word”, they do so out of concern that America is leading the world towards a new “Dark Ages”; one here the world might never recover from.
And they spell it out clearly…
The U.S. is Set on a Path to War with China. What Is to be Done?
In this meticulously researched exposé, KJ Noh traces the genealogy of U.S. geopolitical strategy in Asia and the Pacific, giving us an inside view of both the realpolitik of U.S. imperial expansion and the architects behind it. Concluding with an analysis of 21st century U.S. total informational warfare, Noh argues that the path to a kinetic war against China has been decades in the making. Once triggered, it could rapidly turn nuclear.
It was a gripping, stunning testimony. Before Congress, a 15 year old volunteer nurse, Nayirah, struggled to compose her trembling voice, barely holding back tears, as she testified that marauding soldiers had thrown babies out of incubators in a hospital, leaving them to die on the floor.
Later, Amnesty International confirmed authoritatively that 312 babies had been killed this way. [1] All the news agencies ran with the story, and the country and Congress were in a total uproar.
There was only one problem: it was completely, utterly, totally fraudulent. It was engineered, perjured, coached testimony concocted by PR experts, designed to manufacture consent for a U.S. war on Iraq.
At the time, it was also crystal clear that the claims were absurd—Kuwait had a population of less than 1.5 million at the time, and given its birth rate, would have had a few hundred premature babies a year. It’s inconceivable that over 300 of them could have been clustered in a single hospital on a single day.
Nevertheless, this was the story that was sold to the U.S. people. Representative John Porter stated,
“We have never heard…[such] a record of inhumanity and brutality and sadism…I don’t know how the people of the civilized countries of this world can fail to do everything within their power to remove this scourge from the face of the earth.”
Not long afterward, the U.S. went to war with Iraq. It would wage war again, 12 years later, doubling down with even more monstrous lies about weapons of mass destruction.
Today, we are facing a similar situation: the U.S. is escalating rapidly towards a shooting war with China, and similar absurd, astonishing, and monstrous lies are being spread. In fact, the U.S. is already engaged in “multi-domain” “hybrid warfare” with China. This is warfare just below the threshold of direct military engagement.
On the ground this involves:
Economic Warfare: trade sanctions and tariff war, as well as technological warfare: attempted seizure of Chinese companies (TikTok); attacks on China’s international 5G contracts; sanctions on the primary & secondary supply chains of key sectors of Chinese industry (e.g. Huawei’s semiconductor supply chain); attacks on Ant Financial’s IPO.
Legal Warfare, or “lawfare,” including over 380 anti-China bills in Congress, and 14 individual and state lawsuits against China for over $30 trillion in “Covid damages”; the long arm “legal” kidnapping of Huawei’s executive
Diplomatic Warfare, including consulate shutdowns, harassment of diplomats, breaching of diplomatic pouches and compounds, and calls for regime change.
Military Brinksmanship and posturing in the South China Sea, the East China Sea, the Taiwan straits; complete encirclement of China with strategic weapons, surveillance, and 400 offensive bases (“The Pacific Pivot”), the use of air bases in Taiwan for military surveillance, and plans to station intermediate range nuclear missiles all along China’s periphery. [2]
Civil Subversion: color revolution, urban terror, destabilization and delegitimation operations in Hong Kong (and other places where China has interests), including millions of dollars of funneled for organization & training, and encrypted communications infrastructure built to coordinate anti-government activities.
Academic Warfare: through the FBI’s China Initiative, every 10 hours a case is opened against a Chinese student or researcher in the U.S. (currently 2700 cases) and all Chinese students are considered potential “non-traditional” “collectors” and “spies” involved in a “thousand grains of sand” collection strategy.
Information Warfare: last but not least, we are seeing total Information warfare.
The stories about so-called “massive human rights abuses,” “Chinese concentration camps,” “Chinese-made-and-released Covid,” “China has harmed us economically,” “China has stolen its way to the top,” “China is oppressing independent Hong Kong,” are part of this information warfare.
He left out biological warfare. But we'll give this author a pass on this glaring omission.
This mass propaganda incites people to hate China irrationally and unconditionally, to manufacture consent for war. The U.S. military calls this information warfare, “the firehose of falsehoods” and we are all being drenched with these lies. This is necessary to justify war against an enemy and to curtail any rational discussion or questioning.
Some of the questions that the public are kept from asking are:
Are these allegations supported by any facts?
Has China threatened us?
Is the U.S. at risk from China?
Is this war justifiable by any means?
Is it legal?
Do the citizens of the U.S. want to go to war?
Could the U.S. even fight, let alone win a war with China?
A careful, reasoned approach to these questions, would lead one to say, No.
Before we try to play whack-a-mole with the blatant war propaganda, a more useful and clarifying approach is to ask, why is the U.S. telling these lies to go to war?
For this, we have to look at history.
Why The U.S. Is At War: Culture shock and the challenge to supremacy
The earliest European travelers were astonished to discover in China a country, in many ways, far more advanced than the West: a rich, diverse, multi-cultural civilization with sophisticated systems of governance, and vibrant cities built with complex systems of planning and management.
Above all, they marveled at a harmonious multi-religious, multi-ethnic society, free of sectarian strife, and an inclusive merit-based [3] system of political power that selected the most competent people to govern and rule, regardless of creed, color, background, or religion.
[4] This contrasted the Western system of hereditary aristocratic rule within a society torn apart regularly with religious strife.
These ideas of diversity, tolerance, inclusion, and earned—not inherited–privilege, would strongly influence the leaders of the Enlightenment, so much so that Western philosophers such as Voltaire and Leibnitz believed that the Chinese had “perfected moral science,” and that Chinese statecraft was the model for the West to emulate if it wanted to develop into an enlightened civilization.
These discoveries struck a hard blow at Christian and Western supremacy.
Western colonization was built on a foundational belief that the West was more advanced, more evolved—closer to God—than the “barbarous” countries it was invading, subjugating, exploiting, and destroying.
It needed at least the pretense of being more “advanced” to justify its colonial “civilizing mission.”
Reactionary thinkers like Herder—who had never visited China—lashed back rapidly by propagating a theory of the depravity of Chinese: that China was an “immoral land with no honor,” an “embalmed mummy” characterized by stagnation, in contrast with Western “dynamism.”
In addition, the Chinese system of meritocratic government was deeply troubling to a West built on stratified class privilege.
A civilization without hereditary aristocrats was unfathomable and terrifying to the Western ruling class.
Montesquieu, (borrowing from Giovanni Botero) thus concocted the trope that China’s more egalitarian system had to be “despotic”—despotic for him because it threatened the “liberties” (aristocratic privileges) of his class.
Hegel chiseled this canard into the Western consciousness with an armchair theory of “Oriental Despotism,” whereby the Chinese had failed to evolve due to inherent, characterological flaws in its people and its political culture.
Marx chimed in with the “Asiatic mode of production,” and Weber and Wittfogel also reinforced it. These allegations of “despotism”—despite being total distortions of Chinese governance–have infused all Western discourses about China since.
A civilization without hereditary aristocrats was unfathomable and terrifying to the Western ruling class. Montesquieu, (borrowing from Giovanni Botero) thus concocted the trope that China’s more egalitarian system had to be “despotic”—despotic for him because it threatened the “liberties” (aristocratic privileges) of his class. These allegations of “despotism”—despite being total distortions of Chinese governance–have infused all Western discourses about China since.
Enter the Bandits
At the same time, “embalmed” Chinese “inferiority” notwithstanding, the West craved the exquisite consumer goods of China—tea, silk, porcelain—and this created huge trade imbalances.
The Western response to balance the books was narco-trafficking: smuggling in industrial amounts of opium—at its peak, up to 9 million pounds a year.
When China objected and opposed this on sovereign and moral grounds and confiscated the drugs, war was declared.
Reparations were forced, concessions extracted, and the country plundered, looted, and destroyed.
In one show of force to the Chinese, the Summer Palace of the Emperor was sacked by Lord Elgin, which Victor Hugo described thus:
There was, in a corner of the world, a wonder of the world…. All that can be begotten of the imagination…was there…. Build a dream, a dazzling cavern of human fantasy with the face of a temple and palace…. This edifice, as enormous as a city, had been built by the centuries…. This wonder has disappeared.
One day two bandits entered the Summer Palace. One plundered, the other burned.
All the treasures of all our cathedrals put together could not equal this formidable and splendid museum of the Orient. It contained not only masterpieces of art, but masses of jewelry…. One of the two victors filled his pockets...the other…filled his coffers. And back they came to Europe, arm in arm, laughing away. Such is the story of the two bandits [England & France].
This violence, banditry, and racism, justified by the belief in the subhuman nature of the Chinese, became normalized practice against the Chinese over two centuries, and great American fortunes—Perkins, Astor, Forbes, Cabot, Delano (Roosevelt)—and Ivy league institutions at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia were built on this extraction and narco-trafficking.
Hewing to the belief that the Chinese were less than human, enterprising Euro-American drug barons pushed opium that addicted 10% of the population, essentially “roofie-ing” an entire nation and stealing its wealth.
Just as U.S. Southern wealth had been built on the decimation of black bodies through the slave trade, U.S. East Coast wealth was built on the destruction of Chinese bodies through the drug trade, in what historian John K. Fairbank described as
“the most long-continued and systematic international crime of modern times.”
Dehumanization, humiliation, assault, theft, rape, colonization, appropriation–these became the standard Western approach towards China and the Chinese; the Chinese people were “filthy yellow hordes,” an inferior, subhuman race, lacking agency, fit only to be colonized, exploited, enslaved, lynched, erased, and wherever possible, extinguished through race war.
It would get worse.
Cold and Hot war: A Chinaman’s Chance
Inside U.S. territory itself, the mythology of “yellow peril”—originally a German colonial war trope—became pervasive.
Newspaper editor Horace Greeley, argued that the Chinese were “uncivilized, unclean, and filthy beyond all conception, without any of the higher domestic or social relations; lustful and sensual in their dispositions; every female is a prostitute of the basest order.”
Greeley, a progressive (who employed a young Marx as a reporter), was simply mouthing the platitudes of his day; much worse than rhetoric was the routine violence.
Prefiguring similar present-day fears that Chinese were stealing jobs, wealth, or threatening America, thousands of Chinese were massacred, lynched, set on fire, expelled from their communities in the late 19th Century:
In 1871, the LA Chinatown massacre,
In 1880, the Denver Yellow Peril pogrom,
In 1885 Wyoming Rock Springs massacre,
The Issaquah Valley attack,
The Arson of Seattle’s Chinatown,
The Tacoma riot,
In 1886 the Seattle Riot of 1886,
The Oregon Hell’s Canyon massacre.
“A Chinaman’s chance” became a common term: to be Chinese was to be subject to sudden death at any time at the whim of white people.
In response, the Chinese hid themselves inside ghettos where they could, fled pogroms, arson, and mass lynchings, and kept their heads down, “eating bitter” and trying to stay alive.
Where they managed to settle down without being killed, they were subjected to cultural erasure, economic blockade, social isolation, a ban on owning property and businesses, and a proscription on marrying and having children, in short, planned elimination.
A minor respite during WWII, when the U.S. allied itself with the Chinese KMT (Kuomintang) against the Japanese gave a small glimmer of reprieve, as local leaders tried to establish breathing space, and the Japanese took on the role of the “bad Asians.”
This lasted until the Chinese communists liberated themselves in 1949, and wrested back their own country.
“China has stood up,” Mao declared, igniting jubilation throughout the third world and sending shockwaves of horror through the colonial west.
This arrant act of self-liberation and self-determination—along with the U.S.’s astonishment that the monstrous KMT fascists they had courted and funded had been trounced–unleashed a hysterical new wave of Sinophobia during the McCarthy era.
High-ranking Congressional committees demanded “Who lost China?”—as if it had been theirs—and purged the State Department of the moderate “China-hands,” who had been sympathetic or informed about China and its political institutions.
A paroxysm of anti-China and anti-Asian hatred would shiver and fester throughout the cold war, burning, stoking and consuming itself through…
Ttwo hot wars (the Korean war and the Vietnam war),
Counterinsurgencies (Malaya),
Politicide (Indonesia), and…
…smoldering on through the Nixon era, and crackling back alive to the flushed, red hot heat of the current moment.
In a country built on settler-colonial racism, this violent, racist, anti-China hatred—one of the most enduring legacies and traditions of the West—is the noxious Petri dish in which this propaganda for war is being cultured and vectored.
To this day, these stereotypes—ideological templates–are readily applied, for example, as regards Covid-19. In the Sinophobic Western press, Covid-19 is allegedly caused by dirty Chinese eating habits, dishonest cover-up, depraved indifference to life, despotic suppression of information, and dangerous intent towards the West.
In a word, the Chinese are dirty, dishonest, depraved, despotic, and dangerous.
Every day, these racist slanders are plastered and repeated, ad nauseam and ad infinitum, in Western outlets like The Guardian, The Washington Post, or TheNew York Times, and then catapulted into orbit by Twitter and Facebook.
White supremacy and its attendant anti-Asian fear and hatred are some of the oldest, most enduring, most deep-rooted hatreds in the Western mind.
Underneath the shallow topsoil of civility and liberal tolerance, it festers and simmers in angry, molten layers of the subconscious, quick to flare up in white-hot violence at any perceived slight or challenge to white superiority, and rapidly weaponized as political expediency requires.
Realpolitik: Opening And Closure
Miraculously, during the 70’s, a battered and bruised U.S., humbled from defeats in the Vietnam war, and seeking a realpolitik to untangle the quagmire, decided to open relations with China to counterbalance the Soviet Union.
Despite over a century of hatred, and the containment of the Russians for being an “Asiatic Race,” the U.S. normalized relations with Chinese, and thus began a short, temporary, realist honeymoon, a brief respite from this race-baiting and race hatred.
This idyll was not to last.
After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989, two things became readily apparent: 1) there was no further political need to engage with China, since the primary reason (the threat of the Soviet Union) had gone away, and 2) it was clear for anyone understanding history and geography that China could become a challenger to the United States itself, due to its size, capacity, and dynamism.
Thus the long, unabated, and persistent thread of anti-China hatred—red-scare-yellow-peril-thinking, reinvigorated again with the persistent white fragility about new challenges to supremacy—came back with a vengeance.
Despite continued engagement with China from the Nixon to the Clinton era, Sinophobia remained a silent, underground political force with a tremendous gravitational pull.
Two groups were important in giving these forces concrete shape and form.
He was the Pentagon’s Oracle, directing its secretive internal think tank, the Office of Net Assessment, for 42 years, and was top advisor to 12 Secretaries of Defense.
Originally part of an elite group of econometric thinkers at RAND (Herman “Strangelove” Kahn, James Schlesinger, Daniel Ellsberg, Albert Wohlstetter), they worked on game theoretic & stochastic modeling of complex phenomena, and on how to strategize the unthinkable and the insane: how to win at nuclear Armageddon.
Throughout his long tenure at the inner sanctum, Marshall had two key obsessions: U.S. military supremacy, first against the Soviet Union, then after the fall of the USSR, against China.
Post-1991, he became singularly obsessed with preventing China’s rise to power.
Using a deft mixture of threat inflation (through recondite “net” assessments & heterodox “team B” reviews), classified white papers, cryptic pronouncements to the power elite, and the incessant cultivation of a cult of loyalists, Marshall kept the Pentagon’s gravy train running on time, while instilling in his followers a paranoid, “long durée” mindset of endless and moving threat inflation.
Throughout his long tenure at the inner sanctum, Marshall had two key obsessions: U.S. Military supremacy, first against the Soviet Union, then after the fall of the USSR, against China. Post-1991, he became singularly obsessed with preventing China’s rise to power.
Marshall’s proteges, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Cohen, Krepinevich, Pillsbury, Herman Kahn, Richard Perle, Richard Armitage, Michael O’Hanlon, and countless other neocon heavyweights were graduates of “St. Andrew’s Prep School” or the “Church of St. Andrew,” and mentored into Marshall’s world view and strategies.
These ideologues had suckled at the woozy philosophical teat of Leo Strauss (imagining they were imbibing Plato, Hegel, or Kojeve) and graduated from Ivy institutions funded from Chinese opium smuggling.
Marshall fed them solid food, C-rations, and the bloody red meat that cut and sharpened their fangs for ideological and political battle.
In 1992, a fully teethed group of Marshall’s neocon protegés penned the Defense Guidance Planning (DPG) document that came to be known as the “Wolfowitz Doctrine.”
A preposterous, overweening document, embarrassing upon leakage for its hubris, irrationality, and illegality, it was immediately disavowed but not discarded.
A few years later, it was redacted and upgraded into the PNAC (“The Project for a New American Century”)’s Mein Kampf-like document, “Rebuilding Americas Defenses.”
This was, in essence, an unhinged plan for total world domination (“unipolar global dominance”) in all domains of war (“full spectrum dominance”), unfettered by international law or any sense of proportion, rationality, or morality.
Borrowing from the DPG its call for the unencumbered use of aggressive, pre-emptive war, including the use of nuclear and biological warfare, it postulated a “Pearl Harbor-like” incident to operationalize.
Not long after, this doctrine became realized under Rumsfeld and Cheney, bringing us the chaos, murder, tragedy of Iraq and Afghanistan and the endless catastrophic wars of the post-Bush years.
Contemporaneously, with the Soviet Union dissolved, and the U.S. pressing NATO right up against the flank of Russia, the U.S. also began to cross-hatch the contours of a containment strategy against an emerging China, the next potential challenger to U.S. global domination.
Marshall and his Jedis began explicit, long term countermoves.
Even as the Middle East continued to spiral into chaos, yet more wide-ranging and ambitious plans were hatched against the Middle Kingdom.
A strategy to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) was initially floated (and later, with the blessing of the CFR, circulated, and eventually implemented).
Aggressive forward bases were planned in the early 2000’s, then built in East Asia along the first island chain, placing deadly and destabilizing strategic weaponry right up against China’s throat and belly.
New alliances and strategies were drawn up, and old alliances reinforced and rekindled, and a dangerously empire-nostalgic Japan was enabled in erasing history and remilitarizing to the hilt as the spear tip against China.
Eventually, as all these pieces fell into place, Hillary Clinton would stage the coming out party: the declaration in 2011, of the “Pacific Pivot/Pivot to Asia” in Foreign Policy Magazine.
Clinton’s debutante declaration was a dog-whistle marvel of cant and obfuscation.
A plan to move 60% of U.S. firepower to encircle and contain China through bases, weaponry, and alliances, while engaging in multi-domain hybrid warfare, was sold as a “historical rebalancing.”
With the blessing of Obama’s cabinet, Marshall’s China threat was finally getting policy primetime.
During this time, another of Marshall’s busy, brainy proteges, military officer Andrew Krepinevich, started to work out the nuts and bolts of actual war with China.
At the CSBA (Center for Strategic Budgetary Assessment), Krepinevich, under Marshall’s guidance and funding, wrote out the details of the war doctrine against China, “AirSea Battle”—a China-directed counterpart to the Soviet-era “AirLand Battle”—involving decapitating and blinding strikes deep into Chinese territory, and instantiating Marshall’s “revolution in military affairs” for U.S. supremacy in the Western Pacific theater of war.
RAND and the CFR chimed in, rendering into granular and global detail the strategies and order of battle.
Another of Andrew’s powerful proteges was Michael Pillsbury.
A serious operator, Pillsbury had assisted in the creation of the regime change “governmental” NGO known as the NED, the weaponization of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, the implementation of politicide in Latin America (known as the Reagan Doctrine), but most importantly, he was credited with initiating the idea of the “China card” in 1973.
Under the good offices of Marshall, Pillsbury published a book called “The Hundred Year Marathon,” scripting a fact-free document of paranoid threat inflation, racist scare-mongering, and orientalist slander that is now standard China doctrine.
In an alphabetic royal flush of Sinophobes (Lighthizer-Mnuchin-Navarro-O’Brien-Pillsbury-Pompeo-Pence-Ross), Pillsbury was the most important “China authority” of Everything Under the Heavens in the Trump Kingdom of Sinophobia.
China Syndrome: Blue team, Red Peril
As the original U.S. reason for allying with Beijing—to counterbalance Moscow—became moot, another group of China-bashers, far-right ideologues with sharp axes to grind from the Cold War also began to crawl out of the cracks.
Calling themselves the “blue team” or “panda sluggers,” they derided the U.S. “panda-hugging” business class who wanted continued engagement with China, seeing China only as a mortal and irreconcilable communist threat.
During the Clinton administration, they formed a loose coalition, coming together with funding under PNAC, using the Washington Times and Weekly Standard as their platforms.
Although the “Blue Team” had no official members, published no formal policy statements, and had no offices—initially meeting in a garage, then at the Tabard Inn on N Street—they included key Congress members and staff, think tankers, journalists, and lobbyists.
Among them, former CIA analyst William C. Triplet and congressional staffer Edward Timperlake went on to write a lurid series of conspiracy books alleging quid-pro-quo between Clinton and China (Year of the Rat; Red Dragon Rising).
This was a bizarro world where Taiwanese lobbyists with Chinese Mafia connections were acting as agents for the PRC government and manipulating the White House.
They also alleged Chinese theft of military secrets, slave labor, the proliferation of WMD to Iran and other “rogue” states, and insinuated that Clinton’s “constructive engagement” was knowingly undermining the U.S. for the benefit of the Chinese.
These allegations put into ink a conspiratorial mythology about a dangerous, corrupt, and belligerent China, echoes that fed into an existing subterranean current of paranoid lies about China.
These “blue team” members, cross-pollinating with Marshall’s proteges, were a rogues gallery of high-powered political operators: Michael Ledeen, Frank Gaffney, Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Michael Pillsbury, Bill Gertz, Gary Bauer, Peter Navarro, Elliot Abrams, Richard Scaiffe, John Bolton were among those listed as “members.” Dana Rohrabacher, Tom DeLay, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Byrd were also considered to be fellow travelers.
The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act was also written during this time.
In particular, the CECC appointed itself watchdog of Chinese trade, technology, labor and human rights, saturating Congress with an unending “blue team” litany of Chinese “abuses.”
The most virulent and extreme of all these China hawks was Frank Gaffney, who recycled the alarmist Cold War group, “Committee on the Present Danger,” into the current “Committee on the Present Danger: China,” contending that “there is no hope of coexistence with China.”
Gaffney’s ideology and guiding principles coincide with official positions on China and key U.S. foreign policy; moreover, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s speech and actions on China reflect his close affiliation and affinity with Gaffney.
What the Pivot is: the Geostrategy of China-bashing
Much of the “blue team’s” ideology and theorizing followed pre-existing currents of ideological posturing and hate-speech but have incorporated sharper geopolitical and geo-economic dimensions.
Western history can be seen as having several inflection points: one was 1492, the advent of the “Columbian Era.”
The Columbian era is the era of sea-faring, sea-power-based Western colonial and imperial empires.
The demise of the Columbian era was foreshadowed by an Oxford geographer in 1904 who put forth what is now known as the “Heartland Theory.”
In a nutshell, it is a land-based theory of power that predicts the end of sea-based powers:
“Who rules East Europe (Eurasia) commands the Heartland;
who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;
who rules the World-Island commands the world.”
It also concluded that
“Were the Chinese [to] conquer its territory [of the Russian Empire], they might constitute the yellow peril to the world’s freedom.”
This maxim and the anxiety it provoked was red-lined in Brezinski’s “Grand Chess game”: “No Eurasian challenger should emerge that can dominate Eurasia and thus also challenge U.S. global pre-eminence.”
In 1992, Marshall’s protégé, Paul Wolfowitz formulated the above strands into a formal doctrine, in the above mentioned DPG (Defense Planning guidance) document:
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival…that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union…to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region to generate global power…. The U.S. must…protect a new order that [convinces] potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must…discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.
This can be better understood by looking at a map:
This is a map of the world, drawn from a topologist’s eye. It shows relationships, not distances or area. From this map you can note the following things:
China has more borders than any other country in the world. This also gives it the possibility of connecting with more countries than any other.
Blue lines/corridors are oceans: The top two thirds is the “world island” or “pivot state”–it contains most of the world’s population, resources, and wealth, and it can be connected as a single entity through overland routes or short ocean hops.
The bottom is the Americas. It is topologically isolated from the world island. As sea lane control becomes less important, it will also lose prominence and relative power if the world island unifies. It’s clear that unifying power will probably arise in China, whose overland paths using high-speed rail, roads, pipelines, and ports can be easily built and connected, in a “new silk road.”
The U.S. needs to fracture the world island to maintain its global power. If you color in the places where China is encircled, or where the US is waging war/fracturing societies/creating chaos, this is exactly where the fault lines of the global conflict are, and reveal what U.S. strategy is.
Here is a second map:
CSBA: Shipping Lanes through the South China Sea.
The U.S. has actually surrounded China with 400 military bases, bristling with strategic and tactical weaponry. It also has war-gamed out China’s key vulnerability: the chokepoint of the South China Sea. War in the South China Sea would disrupt $5.3 Trillion of China’s external trade and 77% of China’s oil imports. In this scenario, the U.S. does not have to win a shooting war with China in the South China Sea. The war just has to happen, and the disruption to trade could crash China’s economy.
The U.S. has actually surrounded China with 400 military bases, bristling with strategic and tactical weaponry.
It also has war-gamed out China’s key vulnerability: the chokepoint of the South China Sea.
War in the South China Sea would disrupt $5.3 Trillion of China’s external trade and 77% of China’s oil imports. [5]
In this scenario, the U.S. does not have to win a shooting war with China in the South China Sea.
The war just has to happen, and the disruption to trade could crash China’s economy.
The map shows the shipping lanes that would be disrupted.
China’s first response to the U.S. pivot and encirclement, especially in the South China Sea—its key choke point—was to build defensive military facilities along some of the islands, to deter U..S incursion and to raise the cost of interference.
Its other, much more ambitious response was the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI), which constitutes a long overland escape from the encirclement, similar to its “long march” during its encirclement by the fascist KMT.
The BRI travels through Southeast Asia, then overland through Central Asia, to the Mediterranean, and then Europe and Africa. In particular:
CMEC (China-Myanmar Economic Corridor) travels through Rakhine State and exits to the Indian Ocean at Kyaukphyu port (bypassing the Strait of Malacca).
CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) to Gwadar port transits directly to the Arabian Sea and the Persian Gulf.
Xinjiang is the key overland route for BRI to exit China to Central Asia, with Iran also a key node.
Djibouti at the horn of Africa is the entry node to Africa (the Sahel, and the South)
As it does this, BRI becomes the physical realization of Mackinder’s “heartland” in Eurasia—the “pivot state” connecting the “world island” into a single economic bloc and raising China to the status of the key regional power, accomplishing exactly what Brezinski and Wolfowitz sought to prevent.
Mercator Institute for China Studies: Belt and Road Initiative.
Mindful of this development, and aware of the rapidly ticking biological clock on U.S. power, the U.S. is currently rapidly escalating hostilities in the South China Sea (SCS), most recently with…
War games,
U2 incursions,
Belligerent passages of aircraft carriers,
Belligerent guided missile destroyers,
Hunter-killer submarines.
China’s response has been to launch “carrier killer” missiles into the region.
Until recently, the U.S. claimed that it was not an interested party to the SCS, just that it was concerned about “Freedom of Navigation.”
It has also recently conducted drone war exercises for assaulting islands in the South China Sea, with down-to-the-smallest detail precision and preparation.
The U.S. is also going directly after the BRI.
It is sanctioning the Chinese companies alleged to have done construction in the SCS (all the claimants have done construction, including building airfields; China is not unique).
These companies are also involved in construction of the BRI; for example, China Communications Construction Company (CCCC) alone is reportedly involved in 923 projects in 157 countries.
Likewise, the “Five Eyes” have made moves to block other “road” of the BRI, its accompanying “digital silk road” (communications-5G-blockchain infrastructure).
This is yet another of the reasons why Huawei has been targeted for destruction.
The U.S. is also in the process of stationing intermediate range missiles all across the South China Sea, and around the first island chain surrounding China, as well as attempting to press gang South Korea into hosting them.
This is yet another layer of dangerous escalation, and it will prove to be very, very destabilizing.
Twilight of Capitalism
The final dimension to the U.S.-China competition is economic: this is the uncanny fact that China’s “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” works and outclasses Western neoliberal capitalism by leaps and bounds.
In terms of developing an economy, raising living standards, creating public wealth, serving and meeting its people’s needs, and dealing with crises, China beats the capitalist West hands down.
Even as they claimed that such a state-led economy could never compete against the superior free-market economy of the U.S., the Trump administration has insistently demanded that China dismantle their planned economy in trade negotiations, because of its superior advantages over capitalism.
This was not supposed to be: Clintonite “Panda Huggers” had always justified, hubristically, that their engagement with China would result in China’s liberalization and total transformation—the inevitable, inexorable result of engaging with a superior Western political ideology and economic system.
They also insisted that if China continued as it had with its planned economy and ”autocratic“ ways in a modern era, it would simply fail: it would end up like the Soviet Union or North Korea—it had no choice but to become more Western, more neoliberal, more capitalist.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the market.
China built a system that has brought more than 850 million people out of poverty in a few short decades, ended domestic extreme poverty in 2020, and has already surpassed the U.S. in PPP economy size and healthy life expectancy.
China’s thriving, effective Central government—with a 93.1% approval rate—breaks all Western conceptions of development, governance, legitimacy, and of course, superiority.
With 80% of its top leadership scientists or engineers, China also outranks the U.S. in patents filed, top scientific papers published, and is a world leader in fields such as AI, robotics, quantum computing, 5G, highspeed rail, advanced industrial production, next generation IT, materials science, and sustainable energy development, low-carbon eco-cities, and reforestation.
It has also pledged to go carbon neutral by 2060, essentially giving the world an outside chance to still beat global warming—despite being a historical carbon creditor.
With its scientific leadership, whole-of-society public health strategies, and its valuing of every human life, it has also shown that it can organize to defeat a mass pandemic in weeks—and by overriding capitalist markets whenever and wherever it sees fit.
Meanwhile the U.S. still struggles with the largest number of cases and deaths from Covid-19—a death rate 200 times that of China’s—and is incapable of preventing Covid-19 among its own top leadership.
To boot, first in 2008, and then in 2020, the U.S. neoliberal capitalist economy was shown up to be a jacked-up deck of cards, rescued only by massive Chinese debt-purchasing and endless printing of fiat money.
In contrast, China has demonstrated that it has developed an alternative, non-Western, non-capitalist model of development—without war, invasion, colonization, slavery, regime change, primitive accumulation—that the world can emulate and follow.
Once you realize that, you understand why the U.S. ruling classes are so desperate to erase China and its example:
China offers a threatening alternative model of development that is non-capitalist, non-Western, and non-colonial.
As such, it undermines the West’s neocolonial domination of the Third World and its debt-trap-based forced underdevelopment, subservience, and expropriation.
It also offers a model of state-led ecological development.
All this signals new possibilities of hope and transformation for the world.
The ruling classes in the West will go to war to prevent this.
China offers a threatening alternative model of development that is non-capitalist, non-Western, and non-colonial. As such, it undermines the West’s neocolonial domination of the Third World and its debt-trap-based forced underdevelopment, subservience, and expropriation.
Where Does This All End?
Despite China’s assurances that it does not want war, hot or cold, that it seeks win-win cooperation and co-existence with all countries, and that it disdains hegemony, the U.S. continually escalates, provokes, and threatens China, all the while dismantling off-ramps channels of communication and global institutions for cooperation and de-escalation.
The conclusion to draw is hard, but obvious: if things continue as they have, this can only lead to direct military confrontation and kinetic war.
Doubling down on racism, sexism, capitalism, and militarism, the Democratic regime not only silences demands for viable reform and abolition by the Sandernistas, BLM, and Me Too, but also ignores the non-interventionist, peace-demanding wishes of the majority of voters, dismissing their demands for a better system and less violent foreign policy.
Biden’s doctrine toward China will be a continuation of the noxious arc of history and planning begun by Marshall in the late 1970s. The think tank advising Biden on foreign policy, CNAS, a near-rhyming clone to PNAC, has grandfathered in most of existing anti-China doctrine, and has mapped out in obsessive detail, the next steps of a highly destructive and dangerous strategy of confrontation with China.
The key difference is that Biden’s regime will “unite” countries more skillfully against China, pivot away from Trump’s neomercantilism towards a more “globalist” approach, and likely implement some revised version of the TPP, the 12 nation economic bloc against China.
Here are some key points to understand:
Escalation to war is bipartisan: there is no lesser evil here. The racist, capitalist, imperial ruling classes cannot and will not tolerate a rising or equal China in a multi-polar world. They would rather see the end of the world than an end to capitalism or white supremacy.
One subset of this group believes that they can actually win a war against China, or at the very least force its subjugation to the U.S. This submission will not happen, given the actual balance of forces and Chinese determination to resist.
The U.S. wants global supremacy but if the ruling class can’t have ordered supremacy, they are not averse to global disintegration and chaos. Proteges of Hayek and Leo Strauss, they thrive on “revolutionary disorder.” One fallback model of U.S. supremacy is to plunge the rest of the world back into the dark ages through hybrid warfare—while the U.S. controls the key systems of communication, information, surveillance, finance, rent extraction, along with the corridors of maritime transport.
There is a third group of elite hawks who are millenarian Christians. Although a minority, they hold powerful positions. These believe in the salvation and rapture of the faithful as existing “contradictions” are heightened into Armageddon. These are religious zealots with no brakes or constraints on their appetite for war.
War, if it happens, would rapidly turn nuclear. The U.S. no longer has “overmatch” in conventional weapons, and no longer subscribes to deterrence. Instead, its declaratory policy allows nuclear weapons to be used against “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks.” [6] Since the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, the U.S. has explicitly prepared for nuclear war with China, and threatens “intolerable damage” in response to “non-nuclear or nuclear aggression.” [7] The Chinese have disavowed nuclear first strike—their nuclear capacity is currently minimal and purely defensive—but in case of war the US military could easily resort to the use of low-yield nuclear weapons[iii] or even decapitating nuclear first strikes [8] to overcome its conventional weaknesses. China’s deterrence would then have to shift to “hair trigger,” “launch on warning.” This means that war could rapidly escalate to large scale nuclear strikes, which many scientists predict would result in nuclear winter, dooming most forms of organic life on the planet.
Modern “democracies” require constant media manipulation and propaganda, to manufacture consent for war. As a result, we are living in time of total deceit, as Orwell put it: “Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac…. Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” William Casey, CIA director summarized this succinctly: “We’ll know when our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” [9]
War, if it happens, could rapidly turn nuclear. Since the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, the U.S. has explicitly prepared for nuclear war with China, and threatens “intolerable damage” in response to “non-nuclear or nuclear aggression.”
What Then, Is To Be Done?
Our work is cut out for us: “In war, the first casualty is truth.”
Our task is to prevent the first casualty, challenge the lies; the second, to organize and work for peace.
As we approach elections, the possibility of an October surprise increases. Remember:
Information war precedes, justifies, and enables kinetic war, therefore you must think critically and defensively; do not take anything attacking China at face value.
Evaluate everything for a) source b) logic, sense, rationality c) bracket & evaluate emotional triggers or trigger words d) look at counter-evidence/arguments
Make your own judgments, draw your own conclusions: seek truth from facts
Don’t be fooled by the engineering of “truthiness”:
Stories and lies seem credible when they are 1) repeated incessantly 2) resemble pre-existing stories (especially ones that are projected from our own disowned flaws), 3) have some tiny grain of plausibility mixed in 4) seem coherent or manufacture coherence through multiple sources, and 5) tug at your heartstrings.
This means that we have to:
Watch out for memes and repetition: watch out for stories that seem self-replicating, self-distributing, repetitive, and create an echo chamber—qualities that make them seem real and convincing even when they are lies. Even debunked stories serve as compost for more lies. Remember also that U.S. social media is handmaiden to the war machine—the worst is Twitter [10]—it promotes war propaganda and routinely purges counter-narratives.
Distinguish the coherence and validation of a story that has multiple sources of verification from planted-and-echo-chambered-stories (for example, anything about China connected to WUC (World Uyghur Congress)-Adrian Zenz–ASPI-Nathan Ruser-nexus; the Lausan-Jacobin-Nation-DemocracyNow-tendency; or The Guardian-NYTimes-Washington Post-CFR-cabal or other combinations thereof). Outlets like these are not channels of independent verification; they are often a set of single sourced memes skillfully distributed out and repeated through different channels, part of the fire hose [11] strategy of war propaganda.
Watch out for emotional trigger words: “genocide,” “slavery,” “concentration camp,” “trafficking,” “sterilization,” “theft/IP theft,” “espionage,” “cyber warfare,” attributed without any proof. These are trigger words designed to bypass critical evaluation, appealing to your emotions: fear, pity, and outrage.
Watch out for projection and gaslighting: the U.S. has a long history of slave and prison slave labor [12], of Third World debt-traps, of mistreating/torturing/killing Muslims, of genociding Indigenous peoples, of mass incarceration, of police brutality, of cultural genocide, mass sterilization, medical testing without consent [13]. If you see these words or allegations alleged against China, especially in a context where it makes no sense, evaluate [14] whether it seems real because there is actual proof, or because it is a convenient projection of the U.S./West’s own disowned violence, criminality, and brutality.
Speak up and simply call out the propaganda for what it is: lies to enable war and war-profiteering. But don’t get trapped in the weeds of debunking—they will spread a 1000 new lies before you’ve refuted a single one: “Don’t expect to counter the firehose of falsehood with the squirt gun of truth”—cut it off at the root.
Do not allow yourself to be silenced. Be prepared to be criticized as a “human rights denier.” Not having truth on their side, this is what the worst human rights abusers will always resort to: shut the f*ck up [or else]. Don’t be intimated, and don’t let them silence you. Make your voice heard!
Last but not least, organize! Despair is not an option! The following are good places to start:
[10] As news of horrific assaults by HK rioters on journalists spread through the mediasphere on June 12th, within hours, Twitter shut down 170,000 accounts on the ground that they were “promoting narratives favorable to the CPC”: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/information-operations-june-2020.html. According to the Guardian, “The major themes of the tweets were that that Hong Kong protesters were violent, and the US was interfering with the protests; accusations about Guo; the Taiwan election; and praise of China’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic”—which turned out to be true. Twitter coordinates with ASPI, a key source of anti-China propaganda.
[12] For example, ASPI makes unfounded allegations of Chinese slave labor while being funded by US corporations that are confirmed to use US prison slave labor
[13] For example, the NY Times concocted an article on “non-consensual” Chinese vaccine testing, which doesn’t hold up to any scrutiny. Among other things, it confounds the risk profiles of Western m-RNA & ADV-vectored vaccines that have never been approved for human use, with the time-tested inactivated vaccines that the Chinese are using.
[14] Some good resources are available at Qiao Collective:
When I passed this on to some friend to review, they had some interesting things to say. Such as this…
This is a good article, but an important part is missing. China is not the same China, and the world is not the same world anyone. The United States and the West can no longer do what they please anymore. The price they have to pay for a war with China would be more than they or the world can afford. If it is not for that reason, China would have ceased to exist long ago.
-Han Dongping
Well, maybe if if the United States was lead with reason, was led by knowledge and skills, and was led by those with the best interests of the American people in their minds.
But that is not the case, America is lead by different kinds of people. And man, oh man, do they think differently…
To be sure, the world as we know it will have its end (2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 21:1). But when it ends it will be replaced by a new heaven and new earth. The Noahic covenant seems to rule out universal devastation short of Christ’s coming.
Thus, nuclear war is the opening salvo to enable the return of Jesus Christ our savior and Lord.
But, let us beware of presuming that the day of the Lord will come with a shower of nuclear warheads only. My own feeling is that the crack at Christ’s coming will make our weapons seem like maypops and firecrackers.
Woe to us if we fornicate and proselytize prior to invoking his return!
Even if we succeed, we will be found on the wrong side at his appearing: only the peacemakers are sons of God (Matthew 5:9). There is but one way, and only one way, to “hasten” his appearing: “This gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14).
We must pledge to use nuclear weapons only to hasten the arrival of Heaven on Earth. Not to use it for any other purpose. We must engage in war under the name of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savor. For according to 1 Timothy 2:1-4, the peace after war makes the best pathway for evangelism, not the war itself.
And they view things quite differently.
And I shake my head in disbelief.
Do you want more?
I have more posts in my Trump Trade War Index here…
You’ll not find any big banners or popups here talking about cookies and privacy notices. There are no ads on this site (aside from the hosting ads – a necessary evil). Functionally and fundamentally, I just don’t make money off of this blog. It is NOT monetized. Finally, I don’t track you because I just don’t care to.
Please kindly help me out in this effort. There is a lot of effort that goes into this disclosure. I could use all the financial support that anyone could provide. Thank you very much.
Yeah, here’s yet another one of those posts that you won’t find anywhere else. Like [1] the idea that COVID-19 was a bio-weapon, and [2] the details about what the Hybrid-war by Trump on China entailed. I mean, for Pete’s Sake’s everyone! Can’t anyone else put the details together? Why the fuck do I have to do it? Eh?
Putting “the pieces” together isn’t difficult. You just need to be aware, and be able to discern. You collect information from all over. You try to avoid “echo chambers”, no matter how interesting or “delicious” they are to your own personal view points. And you just start looking for patterns.
You look for patterns.
Then while others are busy studying with the pieces that they find the most interesting, you will have a much broader outlook, and one that tends to be accurate.
.
Sigh.
Where are those highly paid “journalists” from CNN, FOX or MSNBC? Where the fuck are they now? Yes, I know, I know, they are there to manipulate, not to “report news”, but for crying out loud, it’s NOT a difficult subject to report on.
A few billion dollars are used to “send a message” to China. The propaganda campaign against China was on full-swing, and the Internet (on the neocon and War-Hawk websites) that America was “gonna kick some slant-eyed ass”. Everywhere (on the Conservative, and Neocon websites) were discussions about how “Trump was finally doing something about the evil Chinese Communists”.
Then everything went quiet.
Quiet, as in “armada? What armada?” Quiet as “you can hear a pin drop”. Quiet as the darkest dead of night. Quiet as in “Hey! Wake up! Is anyone in the Pentagon Press Room?” Quiet. Hush.
…whisper…
This quiet is what is so very disturbing. This quiet is what is worrisome to me. This quiet is what speaks volumes. This quiet is what we should all pay attention to.
OK. Let’s keep this all short and sweet.
The Basics.
As China emerges as a leading Superpower, the established nation (the United States) attempts to prevent it’s rise.
There are all sorts of reasonings, and justifications for this.
And yes it is true, it would take years to go over everything in detail. But the simple fact behind this is that the Geo-political conflicts between the USA and China fall under the Thucydides trap.
The Thucydides Trap is a theory proposed by Graham Allison who postulates that war between a rising power and an established power is inevitable.
-What is Thucydides’s Trap?
Well, yeah.
The United States “fell” into this situation. And they followed the historical model. They didn’t even pause. The United States initiated a full-spectrum “hybrid” war against China, and has done absolutely everything within it’s power short of World War III with nuclear weapons.
I wrote about it HERE in great painstaking detail.
There are many, many aspects to this assault upon China, and they are all very interesting. Because the “wide spectrum” of assaults are spell-binding in their diversity, and stunning in their depth and scope.
However, this post is going to cover one very tiny and specific event.
This event is the Enormous US Navy led, Naval armada sent to engage China in the South China Sea during the late Summer of 2020.
Enormous.
United States led.
Seven, state of the art, Attack Battle Carriers and their air wings. It is the LARGEST armada in carriers ever.
Not even during World War II were there so many carriers massed in a armada to attack anything. At most, America put three in a armada. But seven! That is a world-record, and then some!
We are going to discuss this armada, and what happened. And maybe, just maybe, the reader can get a serious insight into what actually transpired while Trump danced and placed the entire world at the brink of Nuclear Armageddon.
The Armada
Let’s start with the armada. This is a large collection of flotillas (of military naval vessels) all involved in the South China Sea.
Definition of armada.
1 : a fleet of warships
A Spanish word that originally meant simply "armed", armada is now used in Spanish-speaking nations as the name of their national navies. In English, the word usually has historical overtones. The Great Armada of 1588 was a 120-ship fleet sent by Philip II of Spain in an attempt to invade Elizabethan England; it was defeated when British forces lit eight ships afire and sent them sailing into the Armada's midst, then blocked the passage to the south so that the remaining ships were forced to sail northward around Britain in order to return home, causing dozens more ships to be wrecked in the stormy northern seas. Today we sometimes use the word humorously for fleets of fishing boats, rowboats, or canoes.
-Armada | Definition of Armada by Merriam-Webster
Let’s look at a graphical representation of what was sent against China in the late Summer of 2020. Let’s look at all the aircraft carriers in the world, by all the Navies of the world and see what President Trump amassed…
The American led armada sent against China, by Donald Trump, during the Summer of 2020. . The Trump Naval forces are encircled in red, while the Chinese forces are shown in blue. The red “X” represents the mysterious fire that destroyed the aircraft carrier in harbor in San Diego, the USS Bonhomme Richard.
.
This armada consisted of Three (x3) American assault carrier battle groups and one British aircraft carrier battle group. The major vessels that the US mobilized were three aircraft carriers – USS Theodore Roosevelt, USS Nimitz and the USS Ronald Reagan – supposedly to patrol the Indo-Pacific waters.
Additionally, each aircraft carrier was paired with a “minor” carrier.
And each aircraft carrier was surrounded by it’s own flotilla of support ships and destroyers to provide protection to the carriers.
Four Carrier Battle Groups
An aircraft carrier is extremely valuable.
And without protection, an aircraft carrier is extremely vulnerable.
That’s why aircraft carriers never leave home alone. They are always escorted by an extensive flotilla of other ships. The aircraft carrier plus the flotilla is known as the carrier battle group. A modern carrier battle group is nearly invincible.
The U.S. Navy forms carrier battle groups on an as-needed basis and assigns ships to the group based on the mission. Therefore, no two carrier battle groups are the same. However, a typical carrier battle group consists of the following ships:
The aircraft carrier itself
Two guided-missile cruisers (These are offensive ships loaded with cruise missiles.)
Two destroyers (Defensive role)
One frigate (Anti-submarine defense)
Two submarines
A supply ship.
To accomplish its mission, a carrier air wing typically consists of nine squadrons, with 70 to 80 total aircraft.
The British carrier group
The British was the only nation to join this armada.
While Mike Pompeo “invited” the Navies of India, Japan, Korea, and Australia to join, it was only Britain that agreed to actively place their military off the coast of China for the purposes of threatening China.
HMS Queen Elizabeth
HMS Queen Elizabeth leads flotilla of ships as new carrier strike group assembles for first time
Britain’s HMS Queen Elizabeth leading the largest and most powerful task force assembled by a European Navy in almost 20 years.
What was the Royal Navy’s new Carrier Strike Group made up of?
HMS Queen Elizabeth – Royal Navy Aircraft carrier – Weighs: 65,000 tonnes, Length: 930 feet, Speed: 25+ knots, Use: Carries 65 aircraft at surge capacity
HMS Diamond – Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyer – Weighs: 8,000 tonnes, Length: 500 feet, Speed: 30+ knots, Weapons: Fleet of helicopters, anti-air and anti-ship missiles
HMS Defender – Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyer – Weighs: 8,000 tonnes, Length: 500 feet, Speed: 30+ knots, Weapons: Fleet of helicopters, anti-air and anti-ship missiles
USS The Sullivans – US Navy Destroyer – Weighs: 6,900 tonnes, Length: 505 feet, Speed: 30 knots, Weapons: Guided missiles, with guns, torpedoes and two helicopters
HMS Northumberland – Royal Navy Frigate – Weighs: 4,900 tonnes, Length: 435 feet, Speed: 28+ knots, Weapons: Torpedoes and missiles
HMS Kent – Royal Navy Frigate – Weighs: 4,900 tonnes, Length: 435 feet, Speed: 28+ knots, Weapons: Torpedoes and missiles
HNLMS Eversten – Royal Netherlands Navy Frigate – Weighs: 6,000 tonnes, Length: 470 metres, Speed: 28+ knots, Weapons: Guns, missiles and helicopters
RFA Tideforce – Royal Fleet Auxiliary Ships – Weighs: 37,000 tonnes, Length: 201 metres, Speed: 27+ knots, Weapons: Cannons, Primary Use: Replenishment tanker
RFA Fort Victoria – Royal Fleet Auxiliary Ships – Weighs: 37,000 tonnes, Length: 201 metres, Speed: 27+ knots, Weapons: Cannons, Primary Use: Replenishment tanker
The group also includes 15 fighter jets, 11 helicopters and 3,000 personnel from the UK, US and the Netherlands
Meanwhile, HMS Queen Elizabeth embarked two squadrons of F-35B stealth jets, the UK’s 617 Squadron and US Marine Corps fighter attack squadron 211.
Alongside eight Merlin helicopters of 820 and 846 Naval Air Squadrons, it is the largest air group to operate from a Royal Navy carrier in more than thirty years, and the largest air group of fifth generation fighters at sea anywhere in the world, say the Royal Navy.
The Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier led the flotilla of destroyers and frigates from the UK, US and the Netherlands, together with two Royal Fleet Auxiliaries
HMS Queen Elizabeth embarked two squadrons of F-35B stealth jets, the UK’s 617 Squadron and US Marine Corps fighter attack squadron 211
Yes, you read that right.
Not only was America sending multiple carriers off to the South China Sea to intimidate China, but the British carrier also carried American Navy and Marine aircraft and combat wings.
Most of the combat aircraft on the British Carrier were American, flown by Americans, and coordinated with American naval Forces.
The “minor carriers”
What is a “minor” carrier? This is a confusing term, because everyone has their own ideas of what it is. For our purposes herein, it is an aircraft carrier without a runway.
These are NOT small ships. They are all quite enormous.
“Minor carrier” USS Bonhomme Richard.
It is an aircraft carrier that focuses on helicopters, VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing) aircraft and other aircraft that do not require a runway to land. By pairing a “major” carrier with these “minor” carriers, the Navy can increase the size of the hard and heavy attack and strike aircraft that the “major” carriers use.
Conventional take-off and landing [CTOL] and short take-off and landing [STOL] carriers share a common configuration: a hangar enclosed within a hull, a large flight deck on the hangar roof, take-off runway/s, landing runway/s and pad/s on that flight deck, lifts connecting the hangar and flight decks, and a superstructure off to one side of the flight deck. CTOL carriers such as the USS Nimitz have catapults, arresters and, usually, several runways, some angled. STOL carriers such as HMS Invincible usually have a single through runway serving as take-off runway, landing runway and pad; they usually also have a ski jump because in practice they only operate STOVL and VTOL aircraft. Some 1930s carriers also had an additional take-off runway located on the hangar deck before the hangar, the rear portion of this runway being enclosed under the forward part of the main flight deck.
Another carrier is known, this being a STOVL [short take-off / vertical landing] vessel without a landing runway: a large container ship on which containers stacked before the superstructure form a flight deck with a take-off runway, a pad and a ski jump. A STOVL vessel is an adequate carrier because even STOL vessels in practice only deploy STOVL and VTOL aircraft. VTOL [vertial take-off and landing] carriers are also known: some such as the French Jeanne d'Arc configured with a large hangar aft, a large pad atop it, and lifts connecting those decks; a carrier for V/STOL-as-VTOL aircraft with no pad but using a device developed by British Aerospace to release and recover hovering V/STOL-as-VTOL aircraft has also been proposed. Most VTOL vessels are not aircraft carriers per se, but are other-role ships, usually small, configured in one of two ways: with a hangar on the main deck abaft the superstructure and a pad abaft the hangar; with only an aft pad.
In contrast, CTOL, STOL and STOVL vessels are all large and, effectively, all aircaft carriers; this because all built or proposed have at least one of the following: a fore and aft flight deck with a superstructure beside it and therefore a wide beam; a heavy flight deck on the hangar roof and therefore a hangar of a construction sturdy enough to support it and a large hull to offset the resulting top-heaviness; a hangar enclosed in the hull and therefore a hull of wide beam; a hangar-deck with a take-off runway, that deck therefore being high above the waves; an in-line take-off runway and hangar or in-line take-off runway and superstructure and therefore a long hull; complex and/or heavy machinery like catapults, arresters and, especially, lifts.
-GlobalSecurity
The decision to add “minor” carriers to these deployed flotillas doubled the size of them. So the actual size of each of the three American Carrier Battle Groups consisted of…
The MAIN aircraft carrier
A VTOL / Helicopter “minor” carrier
Four guided-missile cruisers
Four destroyers (Defensive role)
Two frigates
Four submarines
One or two supply ships
These are truly formidable flotillas. They are historically the largest and most powerful flotillas in the history of mankind.
What is amazing is that President Trump sent FOUR of them to China.
You will be aware that this was planned and a time-table laid out back in 2016. With an invasion or an “incident” planned for late Summer 2020, within two to four months before the election.
An “incident” in the South China Sea in late Summer 2020.
To coincide with the other “color revolutions” in HK, Tibet, and Xinjiang.
Resulting in a [1] strengthening of the QUAD, [2] coordinating with the “fire hose of propaganda” making Americans “foam at the mouth” for a war in far-away China.
That it would be a success, and that the American media would promote it as Trump “spreading democracy” TM to the heathen evil “Chinese communists” TM for “freedom! and democracy!” TM.
Which not only would bolster his election chances immensely, but would accomplish his goals. Which are, of course, a complete suppression of all global trade, and a total reduction in the ability, power and might of China.
With a war or conflict to characterize much of his second term from 2020 into 2024, at which point a new conservative neocon would continue his efforts to “make America great again”.
My personal opinion is that Mike Pompeo is being groomed for this role; as President of the United States once President Trump completes his second term in office.
Just who is this “Mr. Mike Pompeo” and why is he pushing so insanely hard to start World War III with China?
Hasn’t he even thought out the consequences of a radioactive New York?
Answer; No he hasn’t.
Mike Pompeo is a neocon psychopath who is attempting to start a war with China for some reason.
In America, we have some very, very big problems.
For one thing, the economy was totally destroyed because of an idiotic flu hoax. When the government decides that it can no longer print unlimited money, we are going to have mass unemployment, mass homelessness, drug addiction, divorce, robbery, murder, and everything else.
Beyond that, we are in the middle of a total communist revolution. Virtually every major city in the country is being overwhelmed by a violent mob of black blasters and their screeching white female masters, as they proceed to tear down the entire civilization.
Many people do not think that now is the right time to start some insane world war with the Chinese in order to protect Hong Kong democracy or the Moslems or Vietnamese fishing waters or whatever the hell.
Many people, however, are not Mike Pompeo.
Mike Pompeo believes that right now is the perfect time to fight for democracy against the Chinese.
Mike Pompeo believes America is a country controlled by vicious Jews, and we need to do what slaves of Jews do best: fight random, confusing wars in the name of Israel.
----------
Reference CNN;
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo continued his rhetorical barrage against China as the top diplomat at the Chinese consulate in Houston suggested they may defy US orders to vacate.
Pompeo’s remarks at the Nixon Library Thursday, titled “Communist China and the Free World’s Future,” cast aspersions on Beijing and its relations with the US, nearly 50 years after President Richard Nixon became the first US president to travel to China.
“We must admit our truth that should guide us in the years and decades to come, that if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams, the old paradigm of blind engagement with China simply won’t get it done,” he said. “We must not continue it and we must not return to it.”
He appeared to cast the US-China competition as a modern day Cold War, saying that “securing our freedoms from the Chinese Communist Party is the mission of our time and America is perfectly positioned to lead it.”
Pompeo delivered the speech on the heels of a US order to close the Chinese consulate in Houston — “because it was a hub of spying and intellectual property theft,” in his words. The order — the latest in a series of escalations between Washington and Beijing — demands that the Chinese shutter the property by Friday.
----------
Yes. They’re saying that they were using the Houston consulate to steal intellectual property.
Of course, he won’t ever explain what that means, because it makes no sense. It is just gibberish.
China is engaged in mass intellectual property theft – they do it in the factories that our companies moved to their country! It’s in the contracts that they’re allowed total access to these factories.
Why would they be stealing intellectual property in Houston? Where would they steal it from? What does this even mean?
Nothing. It means nothing.
This is simply a belligerent provocation against a major superpower.
We have a helluva lot of problems in this country, and the idea that China is even in the top 20 is absurd. And the top issue that relates to China is trade. What Pompeo is doing with this insane belligerence is making trade negotiation totally impossible.
----------
Reference CNN;
However, in an interview with Politico Thursday, Consul General Cai Wei suggested the diplomatic outpost may defy that order.
“Today we are still operating normally, so we will see what will happen tomorrow,” he told the news outlet, but did not elaborate further.
Chinese officials have urged the United States to reverse its decision and have threatened retaliation.
State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus said that they “had to make the decision to close down this consulate due to this massive, massive theft of our research and our intellectual property.”
“We’ve uncovered spy rings,” she claimed in an interview with “Quest Means Business” Thursday.“But most importantly, I think what has been very troubling to us is the theft of research from our universities, from our hospitals, the theft of intellectual property, the theft from technology companies. So the FBI and the Department of Justice have started to lay out the case and show the facts again,” she said.
A seven page document prepared by US law enforcement officials and shared across US government agencies details instances of covert People’s Liberation Army activity in the US, including details related to the Houston consulate specifically, according to the document reviewed by CNN.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin denied the allegations that the consulate was the “epicenter” of illicit activities.
----------
The transcript for the speech is not up yet on the State Department website.
I do NOT trust the Moron Brothers.
The reason that I was looking for the transcript is that I wanted to ctrl+f the word “free.” I think he must have said it 1,000 times in this speech. He said it in every single sentence.
It just makes me sick. It makes me nearly as sick as Angela Merkel saying anyone who questions the lockdown is a “fact-denier.”
America is not a free country.
It was a lunatic claim to make before the virus hoax, and at this point, anyone who says “America is a free country” belongs in a padded room. We are not only not free, we are the most un-free country in all of human history.
No people, ever, have been forced under threat of state violence to remain in their houses, having committed no crime.
No people have ever been forced to cover their faces in public.
No government has ever purposefully collapsed their nation’s economy, destroying millions of jobs and tens of thousands of small businesses.
These are all entirely new forms of oppression, invented by the 2020 United States government.
No one denies this.
They will just say, “but there’s a virus tho.”
Before the virus though, we still had nothing approaching the amount of freedom the people of China have.
Just look at freedom of speech.
In America, you are not allowed to:
Criticize Jews (the richest people in the country)
Criticize homosexuals
Criticize women
Criticize black people
Criticize immigration
Make fun of CNNQuestion the veracity of theSandy Hook shootingSay that men are not women
After the banning of QAnon memes from Twitter, it is unclear if
you are even allowed to support Donald Trump at all.
In China, you are not allowed to:
Denounce the government
Produce or distribute pornography
Promote homosexuality
It isn’t comparable.
In America, entire categories of thought are banned.
What’s more, the enforcement of speech violations is different.
In China, if you criticize the government after having been given a warning, you may get a fine.
In America, you can be hunted by a mob, and the government will not defend you. You can lose your job and not be able to get another job. Your family can be harassed. Intelligence agents will go see everyone you’ve ever met and threaten them, attempting to extort information about you from them.
What’s more, in America you don’t really even know what you’re allowed to say at any given moment. You can cross lines you didn’t know existed. In China, everyone who breaks speech rules knows what they’re doing before they hit “send.”
Furthermore, the US government has made it clear that protests that they don’t agree with are completely impossible. Three years ago, in Charlottesville, Virginia, Americans gathered to defend a statue commemorating a war our ancestors fought, and they were attacked by the police, driven into a violent mob of terrorists – then many of the protesters were charged with crimes, and sued. This was intended to send a message: the United States government will not tolerate dissent on the streets.
The pattern of allowing government-supporting terrorists to attack dissidents and then charging the victims with crimes has been well-established over the last four years. One high profile case involved the Proud Boys, who were stalked on the streets of New York by Antifa, and when they defended themselves, were arrested. The attackers refused to file charges because they wanted to keep their identities secret, so the city charged them with “rioting.”
In China you can protest freely.
No one attacks you. The cops do not gas you.
The US starting a war with China because they want to enforce freedom on them would be like China invading the US because they want to enforce good driving habits on us.
It is complete bullshit.
If we were invaded by the Chinese, there is zero chance that we would not have more freedom than we have right now in this country. People don’t like hearing that, but it is simply a fact.
I am not defending China. I do not support the Chinese system, and believe that the American Constitution is the very best system of government ever.
We are not operating under the system that was created by our Founding Fathers. Whatever you want to call this current system – “neoliberalism” seems to work, but take your pick, there isn’t really a word for it – it is totally unrelated to any previous system.
I do not want to be invaded and ruled by the Chinese. I want our own people to rule our own country.
I am just telling you what the situation is.
Shills on /pol/ are shilling this nonsense, just like they shilled the hell out of the coronavirus hoax.
What exactly are we even talking about here?
If China is threatening the United States, sure, let’s defend ourselves.
But they’re not threatening us.
They’re allegedly threatening Antifa rioters and Moslems in their own country, and a sea to the south of their country.
We have real problems. We should not even be talking about this.
-Pompeo the Hutt Signals a Desire for a War with the ..
A “fair warning” meeting of military leaders
Before the invasion flotilla and the supporting armadas left for China, military leaders from both China and the United States held a “meeting of the minds” in Hawaii.
China was fully willing and ready to discuss things, but the United States, Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo kept on postponing the meetings.
Often leaving the diplomats siting in bare, empty waiting rooms and lobby’s. It was entirely rude, very insulting, and set the tone for the events that followed.
When the meeting finally did occur, neither Donald Trump or Mike Pompeo attended. Just the Military “Brass” that was in charge of the Armada.
No one knows what was said. But knowing what I know about China, and my experience in the ONI, it was blunt, direct, to the point and very matter-of-fact.
My guess is that China told the Admirals and Military Leadership that any attack on any Chinese islands, ships, people or equipment will be met in similar fashion. And probably not to expect a “regional” conflict.
If America attacks China; Chinese soil and Chinese people….
China will attack America; American soil and American people.
The “News” Reports.
What is STUNNING is that very little of this was reported.
I mean, you have an armada the size of the D-Day invasion, and it was off the Chinese coast, so close that the people on the beaches could see the ships, and the pilots could oogle the girls in their swimsuits.
And it was RADIO SILENCE.
Sure there were articles. But if you try to find anything of substance, you will be sorely disappointed.
It’s all pretty much variations of the same theme;
China is a threat to democracy and “freedom” to shipping out of China. (Why China would ever want to destroy it’s own shipping venues is NEVER discussed.)
America must lead the world in “countering” China.
China is growing and must be stopped NOW!
America must respond militarily NOW, NOW, NOW!
If America does nothing, Communism will spread all over the globe.
Yeah. You get the idea.
Now as far as really specific details, they are no where to be found.
It’s buckets and buckets of non-essential data. But nothing regarding the actual actions, events, players, or events. The news as to what went on regarding the actual vessels during this period is very detailed, but doesn’t really say anything or provide any information.
As in what these following examples illustrate.
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71)
There’s a ton of articles about this carrier, but little in the way of detail.
The US Navy Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) and Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 11 have finished carrier qualifications.
In this period, the CVN 71 qualified pilots from the Tomcatters of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 31, Golden Warriors of VFA-87, Blue Diamonds of VFA-146 and Black Knights of VFA-154.
Pilots from Liberty Bells of Airborne Command and Control Squadron (VAW) 115, The Gray Wolves of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 142, and the Providers of Fleet Logistics Support Squadron (VRC) 30 were also qualified.
In support of carrier qualifications, the Eightballers of Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 8 and the Wolf Pack of Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron (HSM) 75 also worked with the vessel.
US Navy Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 11 commander Captain Steve Jaureguizar said: “It is very gratifying to be able to return to our primary mission in the Indo-Pacific.
“The carrier air wing joined together with the carrier is the bedrock of naval aviation and power projection.”
During carrier qualifications, naval aviators sharpen their skills acquired during Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP).The operational relationship between CVW-11 and the Theodore Roosevelt is claimed to have been fortified by carrier qualifications.
-3JUN20 USS Theodore Roosevelt and CVW11 complete carrier qualifications
USS Nimitz
This is true for all the carriers involved. A great deal of information that pretty much says nothing. And for the USS Nimitz…
USS Nimitz, USS Ronald Reagan join for exercises in South China Sea
Josh Farley, Kitsap Sun 7/6/2020
SOUTH CHINA SEA — Fighter jets and other aircraft have launched around the clock on the USS Nimitz's flight deck in recent days as the Bremerton-based carrier performs a central role in the Navy's rare show of force in the disputed waters of the South China Sea.
The USS Nimitz and USS Ronald Reagan Carrier Strike Groups are conducting dual-carrier operations in the Indo-Pacific as the Nimitz CSF. The Nimitz and carrier USS Ronald Reagan have been performing exercises together to "strengthen warfighting readiness and proficiency," including simulations to strike enemy territory while in waters claimed by China and neighboring nations.
Even a B-52 Stratofortress bomber flew a 28-hour mission from Louisiana to participate in the exercises, the Air Force announced separately.
"Dual carrier operations demonstrate unique U.S. capabilities, increase carrier strike force command and control experience, and show our commitment to regional allies," said Capt. Todd Cimicata, commander of the Nimitz-based Carrier Air Wing 17, in a news release. "Additionally, our operations reinforce the rights, freedoms, and lawful use of the sea and airspace guaranteed by international law."
It's been six years since the Navy has performed dual-carrier operations in the sea, a critical waterway for trillions of dollars in annual trade — and one claimed by China as its territory. But that claim was rebuked by an international tribunal in 2016. Five other countries, including the Philippines, have overlapping claims in the sea.
The Chinese government, which has continued to develop military defenses in the sea on both natural and manmade islands, was not pleased at the news of the exercises, even as its own military held exercises nearby around the Paracel Islands.
More: Nimitz at sea: Getting a new crew of sailors deployment ready
"The U.S. is disrupting peace and stability of the South China Sea and pushing for militarization by sending military forces for large-scale military exercises," China's Foreign Affairs Ministry said on Twitter Monday.
The Nimitz left Bremerton in late April to complete the rest of its strike group training and head out on deployment. Some 8,000 personnel had been in quarantine for the bulk of the month and all were tested for COVID-19 prior to departure.
In early June, with the completion of all of its pre-deployment training, the Nimitz charted a course across the Pacific with its strike group, including Everett-based ships. The carrier pulled into Guam for a port visit June 24, following dual-carrier operations with the USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier strike group, which is back at sea following a coronavirus outbreak aboard the ship earlier this year.
While ashore at Guam, sailors from the Nimitz could go to designated beaches to minimize the risk of contracting COVID-19.
"The morale boost this gives to the hardworking and dedicated Sailors and Marines onboard Nimitz, many of whom have been embarked aboard ship for nearly three months, is immeasurable," Nimitz Commanding Officer Capt. Max Clark, said in a news release.
Days later, it entered the Philippine Sea, followed by the South China Sea, where it continues operations with the Yokosuka, Japan, forward-deployed Reagan and its strike group. The Nimitz isn't likely to return to Bremerton before 2021.
-USS Nimitz, USS Ronald Reagan join for exercises in South ...
The USS Ronald Reagan
News on the USS Ronald Reagan…
USS Nimitz and USS Ronald Reagan are now in the South China Sea for military drills, a U.S. Navy official confirms to Fox News.
"The purpose is to show an unambiguous signal to our partners and allies that we are committed to regional security and stability," Rear Adm. George Wikoff told the Wall Street Journal, which was the first media to report the exercises likely to irk Beijing.
The drills, to support a free and open Indo-Pacific and promote an international rules-based order, also included "round-the-clock flights testing the striking ability of carrier-based aircraft," he added.
The South China Sea is where China is pitted against smaller neighbors in multiple territorial disputes over islands, coral reefs and lagoons. The waters are a major shipping route for global commerce and are rich in fish and possible oil and gas reserves.
China’s People’s Liberation Army had been staging exercises off the Paracel Islands in the disputed South China Sea since July 1, angering the Philippines, and Chinese maritime officials have prohibited all vessels from navigating within the area of the maneuvers.
In another message to China, a B-52 bomber from Louisiana flew a 28-hour mission to train with jets from the aircraft carriers Reagan and Nimitz in the South China Sea, according to the Air Force.
-US, China ramp up South China Sea tension with new military drills
As you can see, the “news” doesn’t say much except…
Ships sent to the South China Sea.
Purpose is to show an “unambiguous signal” to China.
Running simulations to strike enemy territory while in waters claimed by China.
Practicing joint carrier operations.
The “news” reports on the armada, it’s size and scope has not been well reported.
All historical comparisons are missing.
Any exclamation to the size and the nature of the mission parameters and the vast number of ships and fleet integration issues are all missing. Apparently, this entire effort is not to be publicized to the English Speaking Audiences in America and the UK.
No where, any where, is there any mention of the SIZE of the armada, and all the simultaneous efforts that Mike Pompeo (Secretary of State) was doing to organize a military coalition against China.
This coalition is known as “The Quad”.
The QUAD
The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QSD), better known as "Quad," took another key step toward its key goal of becoming an anti-China military alliance with the signing by the United States and India of a military agreement to share spy satellite data.
-US, India Sign Military Agreement During Pompeo, Esper Trip
The Quad, QDS or the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, is an informal strategic assembly between four nations – The United States, India, Australia and Japan.
The forum was initiated as a dialogue in 2007 by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, with the support of Vice President Dick Cheney of the USA, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India, and is maintained by meetings that occur on a semi-regular basis.
The dialogue was paralleled by joint military exercises of an unprecedented scale, titled Exercise Malabar. It existed officially from 2007-2008, after which it was partially dissolved due to the Australian withdrawal from this forum under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
.
However, it was re-established in 2017, during the ASEAN Summits, with all four former members rejoined in negotiations to revive the quadrilateral alliance. The intention was to re-purpose the QUAD as an Asian “NATO”. Which is intended to be a large regional military force under the direct command of the United States military. All for the express purposes of “suppressing”, “countering”, China’s rise in the area.
Not at all discussed is the regional QUAD members being urged to support the UK/American Naval armada while running their exercises in the region.
By most accounts there were some pressures being placed on the various nations, but most (with the exception of Australia) declined to engage militarily against China in any way.
Australia has signed a joint military agreement with the United States, which includes allowing the United States Navy to operate a Naval base on Australian territory..
For the United States Navy to operate near China, it needs strong logistic support.
To this end, the Trump administration has been trying to obtain this support by resurrecting the QUAD.
It appears that Australia has agreed to that role. While the rest of the nations are maintaining a neutral presence.
The Time Period
Ever since President Trump was elected, the relationship went from “Most Favored Trade Partner” in 2016 to “enemy” in 2019.
This entire event sequence was planned before Trump was President.
It predates 2017.
Apparently, the American Naval forces were to have moved into place in March 2020, but they were postponed when the battle fleets ended up getting COVID-19 coronavirus and had to dock at remote American Naval bases to recover.
As best that I can determine, the armada was schedule to coincide with [1] an uncontrollable out-break of COVID-19B on Chinese soil, [2] a “fire hose” of anti-Chinese propaganda, [3] and intentional riots in Hong Kong.
COVID-19B is the very lethal strain of Coronavirus. It hit China, Iran, and North Korea simultaneously. It causes brain seizures, and collapse. It operates in stealth, and incubates and then hits very suddenly after it sheds to others.
COVID-19A is the "herd immunity" strain. It is very mild and gives people a sore throat, but conveys immunity to the lethal strain. It hit America, and the Trump administration insisted that no one wear masks so that the entire nation could get this strain. And thus have immunity.
But none of what was expect actually happened.
The battle armada was delayed by the coronavirus COVID-19A.
The Hong Kong riots were suppressed successfully (A first for the CIA sponsored NED / NID operations. These “color revolutions” are very difficult to control, and the United States has had decades perfecting the techniques and systems.)
And China went DEFCON ONE on CNY 2020, and completely suppressed the COVID-19B bio-weapons attack.
Thus the armada fleet was delayed by four months.
The timetable was rescheduled to late-summer starting in July, and forces were in the Chinese waters and the South China Sea during July, August and September 2020.
The armada steamed home in Late September, October 2020.
The Events
So what happened?
Subs to sink all global shipping out of China
We know that the United States moved hunter-killer subs to the South China Sea to threaten China and all shipping out of China. These ships are designed and are on a mission to threaten to sink all shipping traffic out of China. That would suppress global trade like nothing else;
The US Naval submarine forces are being used like the German “Wolf Packs” of World War II; to sink shipping vessels. You remember, don’t you? Those diabolical Nazi Germans who were sinking ships left and right…
The Wolfpacks What is a Wolfpack? The wolfpacks, known to the Germans as Rudeltaktik, were created by Karl Donitz as a means to defeat the allied convoy system after his experiences as U-boat commander in World War 1. In June 1940 the first such operations were tried with the tactical control given to the senior officer of the group.The Wolfpacks - German U-boat Operations - Kriegsmarine ...
. Donald Trump threatens to end all global trade by making shipping by sea impossible. He placed hunter-killer subs on all the sea-lanes out of China. . He also sent Black-Ops submarines to the region as well…
American airborne forces practice invasion of islands and Chinese territory
We also know that the American Army has been practicing seizing islands by dropping paratroopers in practice runs.
ICBM missiles being fired towards China as a show of strength
We know that America is flexing it’s muscles and firing ICBM missiles as a warning to China…
A Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base on Wednesday 2SEP20 at 12:03 a.m. The test launch used an unarmed missile that traveled over 4,000 miles, at a speed of more than 15,000 mph.
China shows that it will respond with it’s own missiles
China launches four of it’s “Aircraft Carrier Killer Missiles” into the South China Sea. DoD can confirm that the Chinese military launched four medium-range missiles Wednesday from mainland China,” a defense official said.”The missiles impacted in the South China Sea between Hainan Island and the Paracel Islands,” the official added. “The launch appears to have been part of a previously announced exercise.”
Reports on what occurred during the American lead naval sortie in the South China Sea in late Summer 2020, are coming in…
… in drips and drabs.
Nothing much from America or the UK.
So what actually happened?
No one is speaking. It’s all “X Ray”.
Well we know the result of the armada adventure by what the Presidential Administration did next…
There is going to be a change in strategy. This new strategy would involve the use of AI controlled underwater weapons and drones. The use of a “traditional” assault force using a large force of carriers is not considered to be practical.
These energy beam weapons operate underwater as well as through the air.
Once disabled, the ships and aircraft lose full control, and all their anti-missile technology is useless.
Nuclear reactors on both aircraft carrier, and underwater submarines go “haywire” and have to manually SCRAM. All power is lost. All electronics fail, even on backup battery power. A nuclear meltdown is a serious risk.
The location of all submarines, and naval vessels in the South China Sea have been tracked in real time using a very extensive system of redundant sensor systems. The entire South China Sea is arrayed in a very detailed, redundant and extensive multi-layered network of Chinese sensors.
(Note; If it is reported, it's NOT secret) FOUR paramilitary CIA officers drowned while on a secret mission to plant an underwater pod intended to track the Chinese military in the South China Sea, it has emerged. The men were reportedly caught in a tropical storm while attempting to place the device, which had been disguised to resemble a rock, off the Philippine island of Luzon.
Meet the HN-1, China’s New AI-Powered Underwater Drone. The battle for future undersea AI dominance is heating up and China’s ambitions are not small in this domain.
The Chinese have intercepted clandestine troops in operations upon Chinese territory. It is unknown what has happened to them…
I wonder…
Curiously, from American Media…
There was an “accident” when American marine forces attempted a landing on “one of the islands off California”. All eight / nine of the soldiers are assumed dead. None were recovered. The justification is that the ocean is “too deep”, and they all died inside of an “amphibious tank”. But by looking at any oceanographic map of the islands off the California coast, we can see that this claim is simply not true.
Just keep in mind that there were many, many events and actions that were NOT reported to the public during this entire period of time.
Here is a nice interactive map of the (inferred) Chinese power projection in the South China Sea.
Apparently, while the United States Navy was conducting “maneuvers” in the South China Sea, with the five carrier assault groups and Marine Landing / Attack forces, as well as with the entire British carrier fleet…
…something else was happening simultaneously.
Well reported in the mainstream press, but no one was putting “two plus two” together. These strange “tictac” shaped UFO’s started to appear and “move freely” all over American military bases inside of America. At THE SAME TIME as the American Navy was “probing the Chinese coastal defenses“.
Whether they are “aliens” or not is a good question.
One thing is for certain, and that is the technology involved in these craft are far up and above (perhaps centuries) more advanced than anything the United States has fielded. They can “pop” into existence out of no-where. They are immune to radar, and thermal signatures. They can accelerate to enormous speeds in a short period of time, and they are equally capable of underwater, air and space travel.
Maybe, just maybe, the narrative that this is “Chinese technology” isn’t so outlandish. It seems odd, don’t you think, that extraterrestrials would be interested in probing American military bases at the same time that the United States assembled a major armada probing China’s coastal water.
“Chinese Tictac” UFO that was buzzing and moving in and out of American military installations and airbases while the American Naval flotilla was busy probing the Chinese Coasts during the Summer of 2020.
There are all sort’s of strange things going on.
And it is difficult to see patterns unless you are active in researching and collecting the drips and drabs that land here and there from the various “media” sources.
So, consider this bit of curious “news”…
Strange Events resulting in the destruction of an American “minor carrier”.
An American VTOL carrier catches fire and burns up. Imagine that!
My personal belief is that this is a “tit for tat” response to a similar fire that broke out on the largest Chinese helicopter carrier while in dock. It was undetermined how the fire started, and the Chinese did not blame anyone.
So let’s look at this.
A mysterious fire breaks out and engulfs the newest and most advanced VTOL Chinese carrier.
April 2020
China’s first Type-075 amphibious assault carrier, designed for launching helicopters, caught fire last week while docked in Shanghai.
The fire broke out aboard the Chinese ship on April 11, Forbes reported. The blazing carrier was China’s first amphibious assault carrier and the ship was set to be sailed down a nearby waterway within days of when the fire broke out.
Photos and videos of the burning ship first circulated around Chinese social media, and eventually Twitter.
The fire appears to have spread within the hull of the ship and possibly in the ship’s aircraft hangar. Smoke could be seen billowing out of the ship’s aircraft lift elevators.
Forbes reported that the fires caused extensive smoke damage to the hull before they were eventually put out. Black smoke stains could be seen from the ship’s stern, though the full extent of the fire’s spread and ensuing damage are not known.
The Chinese assault carrier is similar in design to the U.S. Wasp- and America-class assault carriers, which are meant for launching helicopters and vertical takeoff aircraft in support of amphibious landing operations.
-China’s first helo assault carrier catches fire
But we can see this as one of many such efforts by the trump Administration to attack and probe Chinese defenses.
The Navy’s USS Bonhomme Richard burned for days at its pier in San Diego. After the fire was put out, the Navy registered the destruction as “total” and wrote off the vessel as a total loss. No one claimed responsibility for the damage, and it is officially listed as “accidental” or “undefined”.
Donald Trump did blame Iran in some of his tweets, and accused them of this or that. But he has a history of doing that. So you all cam pretty much discount that.
A brand new Chinese Navy Assault Helicopter / VTOL Carrier catches fire while at dock. It is unknown what caused the fire.
Two months later an American assault Helicopter / VTOL Carrier catches fire while at dock. It is unknown what caused the fire. Both ships are equivalent in mission capabilities, size and deployment capabilities.
The Results
If you were to sum up everything in a pithy saying, you might say this…
The neocon Trump administration has decided to wage a full-spectrum war with China, on Chinese soil. To this end, they assembled a historically massive Naval armada and threatened China in the hopes of provoking a military response.
They expected to encounter a military run by disillusioned communist conscripts using 1980’s level technology, Instead, they found themselves unmatched and confronted to a determined, talented, and well equipped force with technology that is decades more advanced that what the United States fields.
The military refused to engage the Chinese forces, and as a result, there was no war to rally the United States against a common enemy. Donald Trump was expecting to be re-elected as a “war president”, as historically, all “war presidents” are always re-elected. (Which pretty much explains the “fire hose” of anti-China propaganda throughout all of 2020.)
As a result, the lack of a “hot war” or “incident” showing American “strength” contributed to an election loss. Reeling from the defeat, and blaming it on the imission of key re-election criteria, Donald Trump fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper upon his defeat in the general presidential election.
And his supporters?
Well, they pretty much want to see the world burn.
A Final Note
Keep in mind that while the United States military, and it’s allies are in-love with big, costly and expensive military equipment, they require maintenance to work properly. They require skilled people to use, maintain, and operate.
People need more than just training. They need understanding of the full complexities of the systems that they are in charge of.
In the Western publications we often see successful test firings of missiles, and elaborate presentations at air shows, but anyone who actually works… hands-on… in the development of these systems (such as myself) can tell you, that for every successful firing, display or utilization of a system, are comparatively ten failures.
When you field these systems, you had best have well-educated, skilled people trained in their use. They must have above-average intelligence and able to react to changes in a very contentious, high stress environment. An environment where all normal means of operation, supply and communications are compromised. Having crew on Naval Vessels that got there by diversity scoring, waivers, and who are unable to pass the most basic physical fitness standards is a lethal decision during a hot war.
What is not shown to “Joe and Suzy Q Public”…
Do not be so sure that everything will work as perfectly as it seems on paper. It’s been my experience that things tend to go to Hell very, very quickly in dangers and contentious environments.
Do you want more?
I have more posts in my Trump Trade War Index here…
You’ll not find any big banners or popups here talking about cookies and privacy notices. There are no ads on this site (aside from the hosting ads – a necessary evil). Functionally and fundamentally, I just don’t make money off of this blog. It is NOT monetized. Finally, I don’t track you because I just don’t care to.
Please kindly help me out in this effort. There is a lot of effort that goes into this disclosure. I could use all the financial support that anyone could provide. Thank you very much.
(@Partisangirl) 
AFGHANISTAN CONFLICT
Kabul airport on the morning Of August 16, 2021
(@ASBMilitary) 
As importantly, PRC air and naval forces have long had existing plans to fight a U.S. force sent to aid Taiwan and have conducted countless 
