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

The book

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

Starship Troopers

.

Starship Troopers Comparisons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do veterans govern the Terran Federation?

The only possible answer is because they can.

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

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

Instead, it is responsible versus irresponsible power.

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

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

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

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

…

Eventually, Johnnie is recognized as officer-caliber material.

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

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

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

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

The instructor begins by wryly asserting,

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

This is a repeated emphasis on the fundamentals of sovereignty.

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

The answer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But is China really like this?

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

Similar.

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

It’s something else entirely.

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

The tenants of the society depicted within the book

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

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

We will look at these tenants listed in the movie;

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. Absolutely!

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

Service grants citizenship.

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

In China, not everyone can vote.

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

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

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

At all levels discipline is required for success.

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

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

Discipline – Elementary Echool Soldiers

Young Pioneers and elementary children going through mandatory military training.

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

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

You can download the Video Archive HERE.101MB.

Discipline – Middle School Soldiers

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

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

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

Training, training, training.

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

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

Watch this video.

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

Discipline – The “Kitchen Sink”

Here’s another group. HERE. 381MB

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

Discipline – Learn about Chinese Society

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

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

Discipline. Merit. Training.

Sovereignty is power, which means rule by force.

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

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

It is invasive?

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

And that is a great thing.

Responsible versus irresponsible power.

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

-John Whitehead

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

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

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

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

[1] At the system level

The system must screen for dangerous people.

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

[2] At the operation level

The leadership must constantly be policed.

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

Rights and responsibilities are intertwined.

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

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

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

John White head said it best…

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

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

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

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

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

But this is not the case in China.

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

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

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

it’s called RESPONSIBILITY.

Conclusion

But China is Communist! They scream!

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

He says. She says. Who cares?

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

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

Meanwhile, China is the absolute opposite of it.

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

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

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

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

Do not fear.

Instead…

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

Here is America today…

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

Well, not all the cities are inhabited by zombies.

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

There is no alternative. China is the future.

China is the future!

Just like in the movie “Starship Troopers”…

Do you want more?

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

New Beginnings

.

Articles & Links

Master Index

.

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

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

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

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

Meng Wanzhou

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

• https://lnkd.in/drDFZUhr

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

- Peter Weston

Yes. Big news in China.

Three Videos of just HOW BIG this is.

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

Why is this big news?

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

Video 1

This is the announcement on Chinese media.

Video 2

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

Video 3

This is Shenzhen welcoming her home.

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

An always accurate MoA commentary on this event…

Yup. I do love MoA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The deferred prosecution agreement seems to admit that:

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other thoughts…

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

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

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

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

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

What happens to Western Spooks that go to China?

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

Of course, the snipers.

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

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

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

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

…

In other news, this is excerpt from CGTN…

French writer exposes U.S. global hegemony

Updated 22:59, 25-Sep-2021
CGTN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An interesting comment that I read…

The comment goes…

Two things I would like to add here.

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

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

This is utter international relations incompetence.

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

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

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

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

Etc, etc...

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

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

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

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

It caught up, but barely.

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

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

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

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

And this interesting rebuttal…

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

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

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

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

The Michaels are 5th columnists.

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

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

Check out this man’s resume.

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

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

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

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

[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.”

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

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

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

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

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

Meng’s release is creating waves.

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

And finally,

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

But that is not the only thing going on…

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

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

SEO = Russia + China + Iran + India

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

.

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

Xi Jinping:

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

Vladimir Putin:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch that quadrilateral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, have you noticed…

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

I wonder why…?

VIDEO.

The Zhuhai Airshow…

Big stuff in my home town.

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

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

That troubled Western peninsula

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

This is how it was reported at the time.

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting chat on my morning feed…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capische?

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

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

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

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

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

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

No more American clearing.

No more SWIFT.

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

And most importantly…

No more American unilateral sanctions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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”:

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

Oh, Very few international companies returned back to America…

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

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

A little story by “PM”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greenback’s crisis-opportunity

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

Even bigger questions hang over the global financial system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Taiwan unification

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

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

Here’s a joke

There is a joke I heard in Chinese Internet:

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

A comment

Cashless in China

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

No wonder the US Banking system is going into convulsions.

But…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And about those Australian nuclear submarines…

Zarathustra says:

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

.

Submarines

Idiotic stupidity.

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

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

Than what is worth the US statement.

Do American think that Chinese are retarded?

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

And then there is Afghanistan

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

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

By Lucian K. Truscott IV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember all the Taliban commanders we were told were killed?

A drone strike took out this one!

Another drone strike took out that one!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American debt is looming large…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences.

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

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

How AP, Reuters And SCMP Propagandize Their Readers Against China

From MoA

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

Oh my goodness!

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

25 Chinese warplanes enter Taiwan’s air defence zone

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

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

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

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

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

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

China sends 25 fighter planes toward Taiwan on National Day

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

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

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

China marks national day with mass air incursion near Taiwan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is an ADIZ one might ask:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How things are being handled…

Curious. This next article…

Huawei CFO gets hero’s welcome; Canadians land quietly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact listing

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

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

2021-09-24

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

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

2021-09-24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2021/09/24

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is the world heading to?

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

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

From the Times of Israel.

China-US nuclear line up on collusion course.

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

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

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

Now the table is turned.

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

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

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

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

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

A statement that shook the world.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But why is France so angry?

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

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

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

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

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

Idiots.

And China is ready.

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

No shit. What have I been saying?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scandal in Taiwan

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

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

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

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

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

A full length video of the final trial press conference :

https://youtu.be/QkoF2Ba44pc

Never Forget…

VideoHere…

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

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

A Russian hostage now?

What comes around goes around

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

This is America downtown. VIDEO.

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

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

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

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

• Surprise: Japan Could Quickly Build Nuclear Weapons …

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

• How Japan Could Go Nuclear | Foreign Affairs

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

• What if Japan Became a Nuclear Weapons …

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

• Japan rejects nuclear ban treaty; survivors to keep …

https://apnews.com/d6f84ab7f40837e523605fdf1b562dc5

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

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

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

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

• How Japan Could Go Nuclear | Foreign Affairs

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

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

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

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

-China’s Nuclear Threat Against Japan: Hybrid Warfare 

Are these people fucking nuts or what?

And the BRI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“To name but a few examples of BRI successes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

US War Plans with China Taking Shape

From HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 2016 US War Plan Coming to Life

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

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

It states on page 9 of the PDF document:

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

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

The Nuclear Question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preparations Already Underway to Exploit China’s Economic Damage

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

It states specifically:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Targeting China’s Trade Lanes at Sea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article also noted:

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

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

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

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

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

China Knows, But Can China Beat the Clock? 

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

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

However, these alternative routes are already under attack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article concludes by quoting a Swedish journalist claiming:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MM thoughts on this “article”…

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

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

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

Other thoughts…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War with China;

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

Most Generals go throught the “revolving doors” of industry-think*tank-Military, sometimes Political etc. So they are on both sides at the same time, they are not separate identities.

The Industry needs to be able to produce the “ultimate military rabbit out of the hat projects”, lots of them, at an enviable cost-overrun. ….. and to get rid of most of the product rapidly afterwards, to enable “replacement”.

For this they need “threats” agogo. Built in obsolescence and fruitful and intimate connections and relations with budgetteers.
*

Talking about budgets, NATO for 2021 defense spending;
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/how-much-nato-countries-spend-defense

US defense spending $811 billion. Not including other “secret” or “war” budgets. (The Afghanistan spending was concealed as War budget, and was independent from the standard defense budget. This will need “replacing” with another “war” situation for budget purposes)
The other NATO countries => $363 billion
Total $1.2 trillion per year. (Known)
(Turkey is the ONLY NATO country which has reduced it’s defense spending by 4%)
*

So we come back to China, Russia, NKorea, Iran as “credible” threats, even if they are not. As well as the others; Venezuela, Cuba etc. as walk-on bit-players to keep the propaganda tirade on the boil.

Whether there is a war with China or not, it must be profitable. The propaganda (as per b’s post) is only marketing for pre-emptive expenditure on the whole militarized industry. Advertising exageration?

Posted by: Stonebird | Oct 1 2021 20:50 utc | 34

Here’s a live display of shipping activity in east Asia. The US will block this and not pay a heavy price for doing so? The two dozen US military bases in Japan and half a dozen in South Korea won’t be leveled? Plus all US Navy surface ships at sea?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 1 2021 19:51 utc | 28

Wow the Pacific Fleet is going to be busy!

I guess they’ll be inspecting every ship that goes through the Straits of Malacca. They’ll need to keep an eye on Suez and Panama too incase someone tries to sneak through.

Posted by: dh | Oct 1 2021 20:23 utc | 32

Thank you for the link to marine traffic. My immediate thought from that first glimpse was ah! that’s why China and its neighbours are busy building terrestrial rail and road systems. Equally obvious why Reuters an other liars are forever pumping the fear china, fear debt bondage mantra.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 1 2021 21:45 utc | 39

There will be war between the empire and China. It is the Thucydides trap, and there is no way out of it. In fact, the first shots of that war have already been fired with the empire using biological WMDs against China. The only questions about the war are when does the shooting start and how bad does it have to get before the empire concedes… assuming the empire is quickly convinced that defeat is inevitable and so doesn’t escalate to nuclear weapons.

There has been discussion about the empire marshaling its gimps on the front line; trying to get Japan and Australia and not-so-Great Britain to take point in the fight. I am of mixed opinion as to whether this is good or bad. On the one hand it helps legitimize the empire’s aggression and makes the forces arrayed against China seem stronger. As well, if a country like Australia is the first to take a punch from China for the empire the optics will be bad. It would look like China being a bully and kicking America’s yappy pet chihuahua. Furthermore, I am quite fond of Japan and the Japanese people and I’d rather not see them hurt again.

On the other hand, if combat operations start directly between the US and China then it is a forgone conclusion that the Chinese will pull their punches, at least in the beginning. The US, for its part, will go right for the kill from the very start. This means that China will take a terrible beating while they come to realize that the fight is serious and will not be gentlemanly. If the fight starts with Japan this will not be an issue. Japan has a karmic debt to China and the Chinese will not pull their punches in a fight with them. China will come down on Japan like an avalanche and deal Japan a very swift and decisive defeat. This decisiveness is crucial as it will help convince the empire that further aggression is futile and thereby help prevent escalation by the empire. While it would pain me to see that happen to Japan , it is one of the best outcomes that prevents things from spiraling to Armageddon.

Of course, the prefect outcome would be for Britain to take the lead in the fight and get instantly and utterly crushed, as the British also have a deep karmic debt that the Chinese wouldn’t hesitate to collect on. That would have the same benefit of interrupting the empire’s escalation, but would spare the Japanese and possibly even teach the British some humility (yeah, lots of luck with that last, right?).

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 1 2021 21:52 utc | 40

I have to agree with you on Thucydides Trap. Interesting that you consider Covid as the first salvo the Empire fired. Actually China suspected SARS was the first salvo. That’s one reason they put effort into researching corona virus and means of containing such viral spread. Unlike Russia, they won’t openly accuse the Empire of biological warfare without possession of the smoking gun, but they will be very alert to future implantation of biological kinks coming from Empire’s direction.

Meanwhile, you’re also right that the Empire has been maneuvering to goat their lackeys to serve as canon fodders against China, even with some success. India is a prominent example. They would love for Japan to go head-on against China–the more Japanese casualties, the better narrative to build global mobilization of forces against China. Interesting that you sentimentally like Japanese and abhors the idea of them getting hurt. I guess you’re not informed of the extent of evil the Japanese had done around a century ago. Have you heard of the Nanjing Massacre, the 3-totality strategy (total plunder, total burning, total killing) in sweeping villages to ensure Chinese resistances would get no refurbishments, Project 731-germ warfare??? In fact, it was Project 731’s research dossier that started Fort Detrick lab. I suppose you consider that to be 75-100 years old past, and one should forgive and forget. Well, I can’t. Especially not when today’s Japan can’t even come clean and admit to what they have done. I don’t see a reborn Japan.

Posted by: Oriental Voice | Oct 1 2021 22:45 utc | 43

Today, the Outlaw US Empire is a Neoliberal Oligarchy while China’s a Social-Democratic nation–when both are objectively examined. Geoeconomically, the Empire’s dependent on China, not the other way round. As was overtly made very clear at the Alaska meeting, the Outlaw US Empire cannot deal with China from a position of strength either geopolitically or geoeconomically.

As I wrote a few days ago to zero objections, China and the Eurasian Bloc coalescing around it when seen in relation to the Outlaw US Empire differs little than how Yamamoto saw the dynamic between Japan and the USA prior to Pearl Harbor–Japan was sure to lose no matter what it did.

And yet again, several members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly stated that they want no war with either Russia or China. They’re what Martyanov calls realists who understand the genuine balance of power no longer favors the Outlaw US Empire even when NATO is added.

Biden and the Ds just as Trump and the Rs desperately need his version of MAGA–Build Back Better–to become reality. But with the USA geoeconomically dependent on China, how is it ever going to accomplish that if it starts a war with its primary supplier if the funds ever get allocated?! Yes, the Merchants of Death constantly need an existential threat to justify their existence, and that’s the special interest fueling the war talk that the generals refute.

Then, IMO, this new set of polling results must be added to the equation–public sentiment for war against some other nation not named Congress doesn’t exist:

“Arguably more disturbing were the implications for the ‘other’ party if secession did not occur. A sizable majority of both Trump and Biden voters agreed with the statement that ‘if our society so wants, it is the duty of every true citizen to help eliminate the evil that poisons our country from within.'”

That ought to scare just a few Neoliberal grifters as the public agrees without knowing that it does on the very source of the problem being domestic. Soon, both sides will know they agree, and 2022 elections are going to see lots of fireworks.

Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 1 2021 23:22 utc | 47

"On the contrary, no-ones talking of a land invasion of China, just the blocking of the SLOC which would have a catastrophic effect on China’s economy."

Now hold on a second.

Given that the U.S. and most countries in the world are heavily dependent on China for manufactured goods (both finished and unfinished), what would be the effect of cutting off Chinese commercial shipping on the world’s economy?

Well, I’ll tell you, it would be a depression followed by mass outrage that the U.S. government could have deliberately brought such a catastrophe down upon everyone’s heads.

Are U.S. foreign and economic planners that stupid? They definitely are stupid, but I doubt that the actual owners (George Carlin’s word) of the country would stand for it.

Posted by: Rob | Oct 2 2021 0:20 utc | 49

“A closing window of opportunity estimated to close between 2025 and 2030 allows the US to carry out a limited war with China, resulting in a favorable outcome for Washington. Beyond that, the US will find itself outmatched and any attempt to curb China’s rise rendered futile.”

This is chilling.

In light of this, the current coercive and zealous covid vaccination program in the Anglosphere can also be seen as drills preparing for possible biological warfare.

If the US mainland and Australia are relatively protected in the eventuality of this conventional war with China, biological warfare (regardless of who initiates it) creates vulnerability.

It all makes sense now: why California is mandating vaccination for school children when their risk of dying from covid is 2 per million infected.

Posted by: Moses | Oct 2 2021 1:22 utc | 53

Taiwan is part of China. Both governments’ (Beijing and Taipei) Constitutions states that fact.

So, there are no issues, problems or arguments on any of these: ADZ, ADIZ or any other matters. PRC airplanes can fly or land anywhere, including Taipei, period.

This is what the press stenographers are distracting you from.

This is the real news of our times, not the drivel pumped out by and then rerun by its handmaidens of deceit.

Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 2 2021 2:03 utc | 60

This is not 1944 where you can float troop transports across the Pacific to attack an enemy. We live in an age of satellites and hyper sonic weapons. If there is a war it will be a series of short furious naval battles in which the holders of land in the area will be the victors. Will Korea and Japan join? At their great peril maybe.

While the media coverage is bullshit China is boiling the frog in water slowly with Taiwan being the frog. I am sure China has though about the suppression of enemy air defenses like the US has done effectively with the Wild Weasel. I am sure China has the capacity to take out a good portion of Taiwan’s radar and air defense system. They can systematically destroy their naval bases along with their communication infrastructure and military bases without a boot on the ground. Taiwan can do little in return.

If China decided to act it would be over rather quickly with a loss of prestige on the world stage. I am sure they have thought about that as well. The US is in no position do do anything other than bitch and moan. Taiwan will have to cut some sort of deal with China at some point or China will act I do believe. When that will happen is anyones guess.

Posted by: circumspect | Oct 2 2021 6:42 utc | 73

While I fully agree to your conclusion that the US can’t sensibly do anything when China decides to forcefully reunite Taiwan with the mainland, I do not see that China is boiling the frog.

China has not tightened any tensions, neither towards Taiwan, not in the SCS or ECS. The “nine dash line” is a naval border claimed by the ROC and Jiang Jieshi (Chiang kai Shek) in 1944 at earliest, and at that time, neither of FUKUS challenged that claim. That as an aside.

As to Taiwan, China has tried since decades to go a long and patient way towards unification, by strengthening ties between the territory and the motherland. Taiwan companies are heavily invested in mainland China (and vice versa where not sabotaged by the DPP administration), between 1 and 2 million Taiwan inhabitants live permanently or for long periods in mainland China, there are some hundred thousand marriages.

China has made clear that the one country, two systems situation can go on for long as long as there is no secession attempt. In that case China will act swiftly.

Hu Xijin in the Global Times described the outlines of such a forceful unification when commenting US weapon sales to Taiwan. Once China would act, there would be powerful satiation attacks by missiles, air force, and naval firepower destroying all major airports, military targets on land, military naval installations, and naval forces of Taiwan. After that a full force landing on Taiwan and all its islands would follow.

There is no reasonibly thinkable possible outcome where the attacking side could be repelled or defeated. And there is no way how a naval attack of the US, AUKUS, Quad or whomever could succeed. And it is very doubtful that even the most radical forces in the US would wage a nuclear war over Taiwan.

As to Taiwan, it is their side who is stirring up the conflicts by buying “recognition” by some Baltic SS Shitholes like Lithuania who are living on EU pockets so don’t have much to lose. Ukraine rowed back when receiving a warning from Beijing. The DPP clowns should just stop their separatist provocations. A Chinese proverb says “the rat that gnaws the tiger’s tail invites destruction”.

Posted by: aquadraht | Oct 2 2021 7:57 utc | 76

karlof1 @47: "The Thucydides Trap was again debunked... The antagonists are supposed to be copycat rivals to each other, but that wasn't the case with Athens or Sparta then..."

And yet the Peloponnesian War happened anyway. The details of personality are not relevant as personality is not what causes war. A rising power inevitably displaces the existing power, and the existing power resists the loss of its dominance. This basic pattern is unavoidable.

"...the Outlaw US Empire cannot deal with China from a position of strength either geopolitically or geoeconomically..."

Absolutely correct. So what tools does that leave in the “Outlaw US Empire’s” arsenal to defend its hegemony? Or do you imagine the empire will give China a sportsman-like handshake, say “Well, it was a nice run but you win. It’s your turn to show the world direction now. I’ll just retire to tending my garden.”? Laughable balderdash!

"...relation to the Outlaw US Empire differs little than how Yamamoto saw the dynamic between Japan and the USA prior to Pearl Harbor..."

Absolutely! Many of the generals and admirals know what they are up against, but Japan ended up at war with the USA anyway. Admiral Yamamoto’s realization that war would be an enormous mistake changed exactly what?

There will be war. Xi knows it, and the Chinese people in general know it.

That is why they are investing significant chunks of their resources preparing for it. China’s military is specifically designed to defeat the empire and any of the empire’s vassals that get pushed into the fight.

The war is not “if” but “when”.

The Chinese know that they are under biological weapons attack, but as Oriental Voice @43 points out they are not squealing about it as a western nation would.

Delays to the overt war still work to China’s advantage: The empire gets weaker and China gets stronger. The greater that strength disparity the more China can control the course of the war and steer that war away from doing lasting damage to humanity.

"A sizable majority of both Trump and Biden voters agreed with the statement that 'if our society so wants, it is the duty of every true citizen to help eliminate the evil that poisons our country from within."

Precisely so. And what is the tried and true method to distract a population from internal issues? Why, external war of course.

It amazes me to see bright people who are fully aware of much of the crazy shit the empire has done over the last couple decades still trying to project the empire’s future behavior based upon the assumption that it will be rational.

The empire has not been rational and it will not become rational while it remains an empire. In fact the empire will become more irrational with every passing day as its end draws nearer.

Everything karlof1 @47 says points towards war. How can someone as bright and knowledgeable as karlof1 think these things mean peace is on the verge of breaking out?

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 2 2021 12:14 utc | 80

For those trying to dismiss the post by “Down South @8 (I’m looking at you Don Bacon @57), here is a link to the original report by the RAND Corporation that the analysis is based upon: War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable.

This is from the RAND Corporation. That is the closest thing the empire has to a brain. What is notable, despite the recognition in the report that the empire’s days of uncontested dominance are waning, the report paints an overly optimistic picture for the empire.

Being chilled is entirely called for.

There will be war.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 2 2021 12:51 utc | 82

In regards to the prospect of war with china, while I am sympathetic to gruff’s perspective, I think it still simplifies the situathon. thr US side is not monolithix while MICIMATT has institutionally mobilized all the psyops effortsz, and the Pentagon has moved to ‘pivot to asia’ since Obama, there are nevertheless the Mark Milleys that understand that there is no way for the US to win in the Asia Pacific theater against china. they wouls not only lose the war but also bleed global prestige.

That said, when the institutional gears are grinding as they are, so called strategic thinking ceases to be rational or even strategic. trying to predict what an irrational institution will do makes little sense.

Secondly, the us is already at war with china, hybrid war. it’s not as if we need to wait for some trigger event — it is already ongoing! Hong Kong color revolution, whose failure is now abundantly clear. the ongoing xinjiang campaign. and let’s not forget that china depleted a staggering amount of its US reserves in 2015 in order to fight off US orchestrated capital flight so it could harvest Chinese assets in the cheap, like they did in the asian financial crisis.

That’s not much talked about at MOC, but I’ve heard Chinese analysts speak of that financial warfare as a watershed moment. watershed because its failure precipitated more desperate and maniacal measures afterwards. keep in mind that was before the hong Kong and Xinjiang psyops.

As for biological warfare, regardless of one’s view on the origins of covid, there was a spate of agricultural pests in the trump era that devastated Chinese food production. everything is being tried.

So, war js ongoing. to instead await and analyze and predict some trigger military event like Taiwan is to miss the forest for the trees. if what’s been happening doesn’t count as aggression on par with warfare, then that is already to have internalized empire propaganda that things like sanctions are not acts of war.

Posted by: mastameta | Oct 2 2021 14:07 utc | 86

The Anglo’s started WW1 to maintain their global hegemony. They started WW2 for the same purpose. Yet somehow people believe it is too far fetch that they would start a war with China to maintain the same hegemony they fought 2 WWs over?

Read the RAND report. They know they will suffer heavy military casualties and their economy will collapse by 10% but all that will be worth it if they can inflict heavy damage on China’s economy in the region of a 30-35% collapse.

What do you think the purpose of all this China bashing coverage in the media is about that b highlights? It is to prepare the populace for the coming conflict with China.

Posted by: Down South | Oct 2 2021 14:19 utc | 87

mastameta @85: "trying to predict what an irrational institution will do makes little sense."

A cornered animal is irrational, but it is easy to predict what it will do.

"secondly, the us is already at war with china, hybrid war."

Yes, of course, but the war will go overt and kinetic. That is the only path available to the cornered dog of an empire. The growling and snarling threats, the urinating on the carpet, nothing else it does opens a path back to power for the empire.

"... china depleted a staggering amount of its US reserves in 2015... "

This is policy, like that in Russia, to reduce exposure to the US dollar. To the empire that in itself is an act of war.

Yes, the war is currently on already, but it remains somewhat covert. When I talk about war starting above I am referring to overt military conflict.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 2 2021 15:15 utc | 90

Any experienced warfare guy will say the same, the most important element of any war is logistics. And that is the US’s main downfall in any war with China. The US does not have the capability to supply the fighting elements with the ammunition, food, repair parts etc that they would require to conduct a war on the other side of the vast Pacific Ocean which covers about one-third of the earth’s surface.

And where would those forces be? The Marine Corps plan is to move Marines from one small island to another on small ships, and then have these Marines to place indirect fire on China targets. I don’t see anyone volunteering for that ridiculous scenario. But hey, it keeps dollars in the Pentagon budget.

Another problem for the US is that both China and Russia have fielded versions of hypersonic weapons that can travel faster than five times the speed of sound (Mach 5 is about 3,806 mph) and potentially hold U.S. capital and logistical ships at risk. These missiles have a range of up to a thousand miles. The US has no defense against them and aircraft-carrier launched planes don’t have sufficient range to rectify the problem.

So it would be a maritime-based war with US major warships not able to get anywhere close to the Asian mainland, which means no war at all.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 2 2021 20:12 utc | 103

"...the most important element of any war is logistics."

Absolutely so. Fancy weapons and great troop morale get you nowhere if you cannot get them to the theater of operations along with lunch. The notion that the US can land ground forces on the Chinese mainland to occupy and annex China is absurd. That’s the “Risk” board game version of geopolitics.

But the empire doesn’t need to annex China. The empire just needs to economically set China back a couple decades. There is a faction within the empire who believe this is doable in part with a naval blockade.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 2 2021 21:42 utc | 109

Gabriel Collins did a very good report for the US Naval War College Review on the practicality of a maritime oil blockade of China – even in 2018 he was not too optimistic, “A Maritime Oil Blockade Against China—Tactically Tempting but Strategically Flawed”. China would also have access to Russia, Central Asia, ASEAN etc. for food and other supplies, and would have inevitably created large stockpiles before any conflict.

https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1735&context=nwc-review

"The scenarios also highlight the reality that, within historically realistic response parameters, China very feasibly could adapt to conflict conditions and withstand a blockade for a longer period than an outside power realistically could sustain the operation. At the most fundamental level, a blockader would find itself increasingly isolated on the world stage, which would complicate its ability politically, economically, and militarily to continue its campaign."

"The significant long-term reduction in revenue to major oil and commodity exporters as a result of decreasing oil-demand volumes and depressed prices could exert profound internal political effects and trigger new conflicts and in- flame existing ones across the Middle East and parts of Africa. Sufficiently serious regional contingencies could divert U.S. military resources from the Asian theater, particularly if the United States found itself politically and diplomatically isolated on the world stage. This could undermine the sustainability of a distant energy blockade against China."

Posted by: Roger | Oct 2 2021 22:00 utc | 111

China doesn’t need to invade Taiwan, the two entities are already close enough on everything that counts, trade, inward investments, tourism, cultural exchanges, the lot.

China’s power is anchored in making things and selling them on every world market, by the turn of the century around a third of her GDP was coupled with exports, by 2019 this ratio was down to 15%, it must have gone up during the months of covid as the Chinese economy was the only one resuming working.

For the Americans to disrupt the sea lines from the Chinese ports would be counterproductive unless they were to find a substitute for the stuff manufactured in China for the US market, some 80% of US imports from China are on behalf of US brand names, Apple is but the one most visible example.

Despite of the warmongering China still enjoys the the Permanent Normal Trade Relations Partner status (PNTR) google for what the partner status offers, China was granted it by Bush at the time of her joining WTO. If the Americans were serious about disrupting China’s trade hence the country’s economy they would withdraw the PNTR status, they haven’t, which tells you they are stuck until they figure where else to source what comes from China.

Posted by: Baron | Oct 2 2021 23:15 utc | 115

“an established power will generally try to prevent a rising power to become so powerful that it could challenge the established power.”

I think this is a good description of the Thucydides Trap. I don’t believe the theory should be taken any more literal then that and it isn’t supposed to be some deterministic scientific comment were causality is linear an absolute. It also doesn’t require a shooting war to hold true.

Given the current situation, and The Empire’s multi-pronged attempt to harm China, I think it is fair to say the Thucydides Trap has already been sprung.

…

Having said that, I don’t think a shooting war is inevitable. I also think a blockade isn’t likely as that would almost absolutely lead to a shooting war.

People forget China has a lot of oil and other resources. Enough oil and gas to last five years without imports. They are also well connected to Russia, Central Asia and South East Asia, so even a successful naval blockade could be gotten around.

I disagree China wouldn’t invade if forced into this position. They’d take Taiwan quickly and it would be impossible to prevent them from taking South Korea, which would lead to many thousand American POW’s and KIA. They’d also have total control of the areas within the first Island chain which would provide a lot of strategic avenues.

Not to mention a blockade wouldn’t slow down their industrial production, instead it would push their industry into war-time hyper production giving China unlimited missiles to strike at everything from Gaum on in.

That isn’t to say The Desperate Empire might not try a blockade or find a way to stumble into a stupid war…it is to say it would turn out very badly for The Empire and hasten their demise rather then slow down China’s rise.

Posted by: Haassaan | Oct 2 2021 23:19 utc | 116

In fact, in case of a war between the US and China the GIs would even lack the pants to shit into as they are manufactured in China.

Posted by: aquadraht | Oct 2 2021 23:38 utc | 118

Given the current situation, and The Empire's multi-pronged attempt to harm China, I think it is fair to say the Thucydides Trap has already been sprung.

This is clear to me as well.

Having said that, I don't think a shooting war is inevitable.

Agreed. But I don’t think the possibility of a shooting war is remote either.

I also think a blockade isn't likely as that would almost absolutely lead to a shooting war.

I disagree with this. Merely the threat of attack will cause shipping rates to skyrocket. That ends China’s manufacturing advantage and ME oil supply.

China can adjust … but how quickly?

I disagree China wouldn't invade if forced into this position. They'd take Taiwan quickly ...

When I said China wouldn’t invade, I was responding to Don Bacon’s comment about the importance of logistics. There wouldn’t be logistics necessary for a battle for Taiwan because China can take Taiwan before such logistics become a factor.

And I don’t think South Korea would fall quite so quickly or easily as you believe.

China provides a governance model that may inspire the Western public to demand real change. So we see propaganda attacks against China. And rising tensions help to vitiate that propaganda.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 3 2021 0:33 utc | 119

I also think a blockade isn’t likely as that would almost absolutely lead to a shooting war.

“I disagree with this. Merely the threat of attack will cause shipping rates to skyrocket. That ends China’s manufacturing advantage and ME oil supply.

China can adjust ... but how quickly?"

Yes, but isn’t that what a blockade would do? The very purpose of the blockade is to prevent China from shipping to harm their industry.

I’d argue that once a blockade is in place, China has no choice but to hit with everything they have short of nukes. They aren’t going to wait around while their economy and industrial production is stifled…they will make the USA pay the price, and then some…and that is completely within their capabilities.

It looks to me like China is prepared for war, they would be able to switch to war production mode almost immediately. It would be the West that would be slow to adjust.

In the event of war, China does not need ME oil, they have enough domestic oil to wage a multi-year war.

South Korea wouldn’t fall easily, neither would Taiwan for that matter, but they would fall, there is no way to reinforce either once the shooting starts. Tens of thousands of casualties on both sides within a short amount of time.

To continue fighting USA would need a draft. Given current social conditions in The States how do you think a draft would play out?

Posted by: Haassaan | Oct 3 2021 0:57 utc | 122

Thank you Roger @ 111 and Baron @ 115 for trying to inject a dose of reality into this notion of a USN or even AUKUS enforced blockade of China.

Gruff @ 109 re: "a faction within the empire who believe this is doable with a naval blockade...."

First, blockade is an act of war, and the Chinese would be well within their rights to attack and sink any ship trying to enforce any such blockade whether in their own territorial or international waters. So there’s a high probability that any attempt to actually enforce a blockade would lead to a real hot war in East Asia. And, once again, this blockade would be completely illegal since there would be absolutely no UNSC approval for any such action.

Second, with the lengthy supply chains required to support such an effort even from Pearl Harbour, the US probably will have to utilise it’s most forward military bases in the region which means both South Korea and especially Japan which is home to over a dozen major bases that are locations for key Indo-Pacific assets of the USN, USAF and USMC. If these bases or rather their units actually launch military attacks against China then the countries that house those bases would themselves be open to direct military retaliation from China.

Both S Korea and Japan rely on shipping lanes well within the range of the Chinese conventional missile arsenal. The Chinese could respond with their own form of a blockade, shutting down the Japanese and S Korean SLOCs in a week or two by sinking (or threatening to sink) tankers and container ships in the Sea of Japan. The Japanese and SK economies require vast volumes of imported energy and other raw goods resources and are just as vulnerable as China is to a maritime blockade. So if the US wants to play the blockade game then China has options and can respond in kind with similar types of action against not only two major US allies but two of the largest economies in the world.

Third, on top of the above, nobody mentions the huge, and I mean huge, amount of trade between the countries of ASEAN ie SE Asia and China. Indonesia alone has I believe almost $50-60 billions of trade with China per annum. Add in Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore etc. and you’re talking at least a couple of hundred billion pa. Are these countries going to sit back and allow the US and its Anglo Saxon poodles to destroy their economies? Nope, didn’t think so.

Finally, everyone really should read the books by Andrei Martyanov to understand the new realities, that the next war in the Pacific won’t be won by some USMC “island hopping” strategy or another round of Midways and Coral Seas. It’s going to be won by the country that can launch salvo after salvo of conventional anti ship and anti air and other conventional missiles. Think about it – there’s lots of numbers thrown around on the internet re the Iranian and Hezbollah guided missile arsenals, 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 etc. That’s Iran and Hezbollah working under the most stringent sanctions in the world.

So how many advanced anti-ship missiles do you think the manufacturing powerhouse that is China has stored away for a rainy day? Bear in mind, some of those missiles have been in mass production for several years now. 40,000? 50,000? More? And, yes, there’s some question re the actual operational efficacy of Chinese anti-ship missile targeting. Still, assuming they get their targeting systems right (maybe with a little help from Shoigu et al!) how long do you think the USN and its allies will last when the Chinese fire salvoes of a 100, 200, 500, or even 1000 Anti-Ship missiles per day for a week or even two?

Posted by: thermobarbaric | Oct 3 2021 1:30 utc | 125

Yes, I mentioned naval blockade as one example of the empire escalating to overt warfare against China in addition to its current covert war. Yes, realistically such efforts by the empire cannot succeed beyond a temporary and relatively brief suppression of China’s GDP. But next year it will be even harder for the empire to dent China’s economic growth, and the year after harder still.

Are you so foolish as to think the empire will give up without a fight?

It doesn’t matter that it is a bad idea. The empire is out of alternatives to war.

Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 3 2021 1:43 utc | 126

"In a few years, another country with a nuclear submarine fleet will appear in the world – Australia. What kind of submarines will this country receive from its allies, what kind of combat capabilities do they provide, and according to what scenario can they be used to contain China’s military power?

Everything is learned by comparison. What are the eight multi-purpose nuclear submarines that Australia will receive (not to be confused with submarines armed with ballistic missiles)? Let’s compare them with other fleets.

First, take the example of China, against which (at least, so they say) everything is being planned. Now China has only nine multi-purpose nuclear submarines, with low stealth. Three of them are Project 091; these are old and noisy vessels that have almost no combat value. The remaining six are Project 093, more modern boats, which, however, are inferior to modern American and British ones. In fact, only these six have a real combat value, and it is this number that should be taken into account.

...Here is just one of many examples. Geographically, Australia can completely block the connection between China and the Indian Ocean: there is a direct exit there and this is not controlled by China in any way. China only has the Strait of Malacca, which with its new submarines Australia will be able to block from the Indian Ocean. Or go past Australia itself, with the same submarines and its aircraft. There is no other road by which a large amount of oil can be supplied to China.


... It is worth recognizing that the world is on the verge of war. Australia’s agreement with the United States and Britain says exactly this. An ordinary world war with tens of millions of dead, as one option, or with hundreds of millions; after all, no one has canceled nuclear weapons. Such a war is almost inevitable.

Moreover, knowing what deadlines the ‘partners’ set for themselves, you can roughly understand the time for which they are preparing the ‘hot phase’. And looking at how other countries are preparing for the next world war, it’s time for us to take a critical, honest and non-biased look at how we are preparing for it.”

https://anti-empire.com/the-first-russian-strategic-assessment-of-the-australia-uk-us-usuka-submarine-pact/

Posted by: daffyDuct | Oct 3 2021 1:48 utc | 127

The increased cost of trade would spur industry in the West 

Factories will just pop up everywhere? No.

 As China becomes more like USA 

Never happen. Chinese are what they are, and it isn’t becoming more like Americans. It has to do with 5,000 years of culture, Confucianism, Taoism etc. So Chinese have a whole different way of looking at matters, such as working together toward a better life (which they have largely accomplished) w/o the petty political combative self-aggrandisement “democracy” so dominant in the USA.

Chinese do this under a qualified up-through-the-ranks leader, and not having to accept an elected weirdo as in the US.

The fact that Chinese are different from Americans, and will never be like them, has been a deep disappointment in Washington, but that’s the way it is and the way it will be.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 3 2021 3:31 utc | 136

Below is from Xinhuanet

BEIJING, Oct. 2 (Xinhua) -- For years, the unspoken truth about Western media is that their veneer of objectivity has come off a long time ago. While touting themselves as the epitome of trustworthiness and honesty, some media practitioners in the West have no qualms about propagating lies against China.

As the coordinated anti-China smear campaign is gaining steam, more intrepid journalists with a conscience are calling it out despite the tremendous pressure to silence them.

In one of the most excoriating rebukes against Western media's manipulation of the public opinion against China, Javier Garcia, head of the office of the EFE News Agency of Spain in Beijing, announced earlier this week that he would soon leave journalism, as the flagrant information manipulation by Western media "has taken a good dose of my enthusiasm for this profession."

The departure of journalists like Garcia is a giant loss to the industry, which is in dire need of introspection. For those who choose to stay and disagree with the highly biased and distorted reporting on China, they are usually confronted with a monolithic propaganda structure in the West to ignore, silence and discredit them.

The past few years have seen a lot of deplorable cases where anyone who dared to maintain objective and impartial positions on China were accused of being on the payroll of the Chinese government or even worse.

While they are working arduously to suppress impartial information and hoping it to pay off, some media in the West, especially in the United States, should expect that the chickens will come home to roost, as their own political order is at risk.

Even James Murdoch, son of right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch who owns FOX News, castigated U.S. media for amplifying disinformation that successfully sowed falsehoods.

"Those outlets that propagate lies to their audience have unleashed insidious and uncontrollable forces that will be with us for years," he told the Financial Times shortly after the U.S. Congress riot in early January.

For those Western media who are still slandering China's peaceful development, it is time for them to think twice.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Oct 3 2021 6:15 utc | 139

One important note on something that is getting zero coverage in the “news”…

Big news in aerospace circles, and all over China is the great diversity of the new state-of-the-art military weapons that are being shown in my town (where I live). Zhuhai. It’s all very awesome. Some of the aircraft are real surprises, and it might take the USA decades to play catch up. VIDEO.

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

John Helmer 26 Sep 21

Following last week’s meeting in Washington of Australia’s Foreign Minister Marise Payne, the Australian defence minister and their US counterparts, a strategic military and basing agreement was announced between Australia, the UK and US (AUKUS). This is being reinforced with summit meetings in Washington this week.

The declared target of their war-making preparations is China.

Australian strategy against Russia in the Pacific region follows in lockstep with the US. But for the time being the Russian enemy, and Russian submarine and surface fleet operations in the Indo-Pacific region, are not being discussed by Australian officials in public; at least not to the extent when President Vladimir Putin last visited Australia in November 2014 with a nuclear-powered, nuclear armed naval escort.

Ahead of schemes for strategic warmaking in the Pacific, the US, the UK and Australia are also engaged in proxy war operations. These have accelerated recently in Myanmar, where Russia and China are allied in support of the military government of  General Min Aung Hlaing. Next, from both sides, state bribery, subversion, putsch-making, and other special operations are likely to accelerate in the Pacific islands from Fiji to Papua-New Guinea.

For the moment, the initial reaction to AUKUS from the Russian Foreign Ministry has been as close to uncritical as the ministry can be.” Spokesman Maria Zakharova said last Thursday:

“We noted the plans, announced by Australia to build nuclear-powered submarines as part of an ‘enhanced trilateral security partnership’ agreed yesterday by the United States, Great Britain and Australia. We proceed from the premise that being a non-nuclear power and fulfilling in good faith the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Australia will honour its commitments under this document, as well as the IAEA Safeguards Agreements along with its Additional Protocol. We hope that Canberra ensures the necessary level of cooperation with the IAEA in order to rule out any proliferation-related risks.”

The first detailed technical and strategic assessment of the AUKUS scheme has followed this week in Vzglyad, the leading strategy publication reflecting the Russian General Staff and GRU assessments. A translation from the Russian article by Alexander Timokhin follows.

In a few years, another country with a nuclear submarine fleet will appear in the world  – Australia. What kind of submarines will this country receive from its allies, what kind of combat capabilities do they provide, and according to what scenario can they be used to contain China’s military power?

Everything is learned by comparison. What are the eight multi-purpose nuclear submarines that Australia will receive (not to be confused with submarines armed with ballistic missiles)? Let’s compare them with other fleets.

First, take the example of China, against which (at least, so they say) everything is being planned. Now China has only nine multi-purpose nuclear submarines, with low stealth. Three of them are Project 091; these are old and noisy vessels  that have almost no combat value. The remaining six are Project 093, more modern boats, which, however, are inferior to modern American and British ones. In fact, only these six have a real combat value, and it is this number that should be taken into account.

I must say that the Chinese have made tremendous progress if we start from their initial level. Their submarines are already armed with good torpedoes and means of countering enemy torpedoes. But they are still very far from British ‘Astutes’ or American ‘Virginias’.

Theoretically, the ‘Virginia’ of the latest modification (the block, as the Americans say) will be able to be used when delivering a high-precision massive non-nuclear strike on Chinese territory. In this case, the Australians will be able to increase the American salvo. In the future, when the Americans finish their hypersonic missile program for the Navy, this strike may also be very fast.

It will be a separate story if the Americans again trample on international norms of behaviour and deploy nuclear weapons on Australian submarines before the war. Then, using cruise or hypersonic missiles, Australia will be able to cause China (and not only it) simply monstrous damage. And just ordinary Tomahawks with their fast, surprise launch can cause considerable damage to the side attacked – and the tactical and technical characteristics of the ‘Virginia’ will allow you to secretly approach even a well-guarded shore and deliver a sudden and unexpected blow.

Naturally, this is true if Australia builds ‘Virginias’ with vertical missile launch installations, and not ‘Astutes’, which can only use Tomahawks through torpedo tubes. There is no answer to this question yet.

In the event of a war more or less close to a classic naval war, these submarines will create an additional threat to China, and China will be required to allocate additional forces to this threat, which it will need very much in a war with the United States and Britain,  even without Australia.

The Chinese are taking care of their fleet and developing it. They have anti-submarine surface forces and anti-submarine aviation, but when performing combat tasks outside the combat radius of their base (coastal in colloquial language) aviation, the problem of combating enemy submarine forces will become quite acute for China. Chinese surface ships will be subjected to air strikes by Australian based and American carrier-based aircraft; anti-submarine aircraft will not be able to work without cover; in fact, all tasks will have to be solved by Chinese nuclear submarines. They do not reach the western (that is, the future Australian) level yet, and they will be forced to act against heterogeneous enemy forces (submarines, anti-submarine aircraft, surface ships) without support.

How will China respond?

China has hope – there are new multi-purpose nuclear submarines being created, designated in the foreign press as Type 095, and in China itself 09-V. According to visual assessment of images of the boat, it is clear that China is trying to introduce a large number of technical solutions that increase the stealth of the submarine and the range of detection for its underwater targets. It is clearly visible that the boat is being created specifically for combat.

But what success the Chinese will have is an open question, and most importantly, even these boats will not see superiority in quality;  ideally there will be approximate parity.  At the same time, if the current pace of updating the submarine forces in China continues, then China will be inferior to the Americans and the British in numbers even without Australia, and even more so with it. These new boats are still in the planning stage — China has not built any of them yet. And another hostile nuclear submarine fleet will definitely require the Chinese to invest very quickly and very seriously in expanding their production; that requires time, money, and resources.

Can China ignore this threat? No.

Here is just one of many examples. Geographically, Australia can completely block the connection between China and the Indian Ocean: there is a direct exit there and this is not controlled by China in any way. China only has the Strait of Malacca, which with its new submarines Australia will be able to block from the Indian Ocean. Or go past Australia itself, with the same submarines and its aircraft. There is no other road by which a large amount of oil can be supplied to China.

Australia would never have had these opportunities in this form if it had continued its work on the purchase of non-nuclear submarines from France.

A non-nuclear (in fact the same diesel-electric) submarine is not capable, for example, of going under water at a high speed, as the ‘Virginias’ and ‘Astutes’ can, and secretly, without a critical increase in noise.

A non-nuclear boat needs to deliver fuel to the combat service area, an atomic one does not need to – a nuclear submarine is not tied to nearby bases or to fuel, and it can operate disproportionately more freely than a diesel-electric one, even with an air-independent power plant.

In combat, a nuclear submarine also has a lot of advantages, up to the possibility of sometimes getting away from the enemy’s torpedo by running. For a hypothetical Australian-French non-nuclear submarine, this would be impossible. The hydroacoustic complex on the ‘Virginias’ is generally difficult to compare with something, and this is the range of target detection and the range of shooting at it.

Now China, in addition to measures to counter the submarine fleet of the United States and Great Britain, will also have to take into account Australia, which wants to get a nuclear submarine more powerful than anything that China has at present.

What does the battlefield look like in numbers? If we start from how many of the ‘Virginias’ are already built and under construction to go into service by 2036, when the Australians want to get their eight submarines, then we can assume that there will be about 20 units. And they will not be able to throw everything at China; some of the submarines will be needed in case of emergency operations against Russia.

Thus, an additional eight Australian submarines will increase the number of units opposing China by at least a third, compared only with American submarines. This is even more than the British will be able to give for the war with China. China will have to increase both the submarine and other fleet forces by a comparable number.

In general, for China, these eight additional enemy submarines are a fresh handful of bones in the throat. That’s about what the Americans planned to do with the British. That’s what eight nuclear submarines are.

This is what caused the reaction of the Chinese to the news. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said that the transfer of nuclear submarine construction technologies to Australia harms the nuclear non-proliferation regime and ‘exacerbates the arms race’, as well as the fact that the United States and Great Britain ‘extremely irresponsibly’ apply double standards. These admonitions, of course, will not have any effect.

And what does this mean for Russia? If Australia wants to have eight multi-purpose submarines by 2036, then by that year we will ideally have four Yasen-class vessels in the Pacific Ocean – the ‘Novosibirsk’, ‘Krasnoyarsk’, ‘Vladivostok’ and, presumably, the ‘Perm’.

Is for the future boat of the project 545 with the code-name ‘Laika’, the form in which the ‘Laika’ was presented to the president in December 2019 indicates the deliberate obsolescence of the project. And most importantly – it is extremely doubtful that these boats will be in service by the mid-thirties. This is another example of how many there will turn out to be — eight nuclear submarines in one theatre of military operations.

However, the western ‘partners’ may have difficulties in implementing these wonderful plans.

Is everything so simple?

There is one aspect in all of this that can complicate everything. The production of as many as eight nuclear submarines, stuffed with high-tech systems to the brim, is not an easy matter. If we assume that the Australians will build some kind of ready-made project, for example the ‘Virginia’, then in any event they will up to 14 years for the construction of eight nuclear submarines if they start next year. This is an ultra-fast pace for eight units; the Americans themselves take five years to build one ‘Virginia’ from the popint of laying the keel to delivery to the Navy.

Is it possible for the Australians to meet the deadlines? Yes, but only in an “expansive’ way – laying more submarines a year than the Americans. And this requires, firstly, shipyards in sufficient quantity to build submarines;  secondly, workers and engineers;  and thirdly, the supply of components from the United States, which can become the bottleneck of the project because of the existing crisis in American shipbuilding. Does Australia have all this in the right amount? The allies will not be able to help them there;  they do not have enough themselves.

And if the Australians build some kind of British project – either the ‘Astute’  or, as is now rumoured in Britain, the future project of a British multi-purpose submarine, which should replace the ‘Astutes’, then nothing will work out. Britain is barely coping with the construction of its submarines by itself, including the part played by related companies. In the case of the ‘Astutes’, some of the related parties are from France engaged by by the Anglo-Saxons. On the other hand, the British can in this way compensate for the losses of the French from the broken Australian contract for non-nuclear submarines. Still, the problem of timing will also arise in  this case.

The Australians seem to understand this. On Sunday, September 19, the Australian Defense Minister Peter Dutton said that Australia will not wait until its nuclear submarines are built, but will buy or lease British or American ones.

This is quite possible. However, not with British submarines, but more likely with American ones, although such a scheme would not lead to the desired increase in anti–Chinese forces; there would still be as many submarines against China, just some of the flags would change. But, firstly, by the time the construction of their series is completed (even if not all and with a delay), the Australians will already have experience working with nuclear submarines, and secondly, the United States now has problems with repairing its submarines (they do not pull, as they say), and renting some of their ships to Australia for the Americans will in fact mean their salvation as combat units, even under a foreign flag.

In general, it is possible to make Australia a country with a nuclear submarine fleet quickly. Moreover, the authors of this initiative have an extremely serious reason for all this. Such gigantic investments and sharp political turns are not carried out just like that. The hegemony of the Anglo-Saxons in the world is seriously shaken, both because of their own internal weakness, and because of the growth of China, and the sabotage of their system of power by Russia. It is quite obvious they will not give up their power over humanity and the benefits resulting from this in a favourable fashion.

It is worth recognizing that the world is on the verge of war. Australia’s agreement with the United States and Britain says exactly this. An ordinary world war with tens of millions of dead, as one option, or with hundreds of millions; after all, no one has canceled nuclear weapons. Such a war is almost inevitable.

Moreover, knowing what deadlines the ‘partners’ set for themselves, you can roughly understand the time for which they are preparing the ‘hot phase’. And looking at how other countries are preparing for the next world war, it’s time for us to take a critical, honest and non-biased look at how we are preparing for it.”

Big, huge changes, in the near future (a tentative list)

by Andrei for the Saker blog

Truly, tectonic changes are happening before our eyes, and today I just want to list some of them but without going to deep into specific analyses, that I plan to do later in the coming weeks.  But just looking at this list is impressive enough, at least for me.  So, here we go:

The Anglos are circling the wagons:

The planned sale of US/UK SSNs to Australia is nothing short of a HUGE game changer.  It is also just the tip of a big iceberg:

• The US seems to have de-facto given up on Europe, not only because the UK left or because the EU is crashing and unmanageable anyway, but because the political grip the US had on the continent is now clearly slipping: NATO is a paper tiger, the “new Europeans” have outlived their utility and Russia has basically successfully diffused the threat from the West by her titanic effort to develop capabilities which make an attack on Russia suicidal for any country, including the USA, whether nukes are involved or not.
• By screwing over France, the US has jettisoned a pretty useless ally which had a short hysterical fit, but is already going back to its usual groveling and begging (BTW – those who think that de Gaulle was the last French patriot capable of telling Uncle Shmuel to “take a hike” are wrong, Mitterrand was the last one, but that is a topic for another day).
• Of course, in political/PR terms, the US will continue to declare itself committed to NATO and the EU, but the “body language” (actions) of the US directly contradicts this notion.
• For all its immense progress since the 80s and 90s, China still has two major technological weak points: aircraft engines and SSNs.  It just so happens that these are also two real US strong points.  By deploying 8 more SSNs near China, the US is very intelligently maximizing the use of its best assets and hurting China were it will hurt the most.  This does come with some very real risks, however, which I will discuss below.

The BRICS is close to becoming useless:

Brazil is currently run by the US and Israel.  South Africa is in a deep crisis.  As for India, it is doing what it has been doing for decades: trying to play all sides while trying to weaken China.  So it sure looks like the BRICS are becoming the “BRICS” which really leaves us with “only” the “RC” alliance which actually has a real name: the Chinese call it the “Strategic comprehensive partnership of coordination for the new era”.

Again, I don’t think that anybody will formally dissolve what was a rather informal alliance to begin with, but de-facto the BRICS seems to be loosing much of its former glamour and illusions.  As for Russia and China, they are not going to “save” the former BRICS members out of some sense of sympathy especially not against their own will: let them save themselves, or at least try.  Then, maybe.

Also, let’s be honest here, BRICS was an economic concept which was mostly an alliance of weak(er) countries against the big economic and military powers of the North and West.

As for the Russian-Chinese alliance (let’s call it that, even though formally that is not what this is), it is, by itself, already more powerful than BRICS and even more powerful that the united West (US+NATO+EU+etc.).

The SCO is changing (thanks to Uncle Shmuel), fast

If Biden was a secret “Putin agent” (“KGB agent” is the preferred term in the US, at least by those who do not seem to realize that the KGB was disbanded thirty years ago) he could not have done “better” than what he did in Afghanistan.  Now, thanks to this galactic faceplant, the small(er) guys in the SCO (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan) are now getting seriously concerned about what will happen next.  Even better, the (very powerful) Iran will officially become a SCO member this month!  Again, neither Russia not China “need” the SCO for their defense, but it sure makes things easier for them.  Speaking of Afghanistan, Pakistan is already a SCO member, as is India.

It is important to note that the SCO will not become an “Asian NATO” or an “anti-NATO” or anything similar.  Again, why would Russia, China and other want to follow a failed model?  They have repeated ad nauseam that their alliances are of unions of (truly!) sovereign states and that this union will not impede on this sovereignty in any ways (besides, neither Russia not China need to limit the others SCO members sovereignty to begin with).

The EU is slowly committing economic and political suicide

Initially, France had a major hissy fit, but is probably not doing the only thing France should do after what happened: leave NATO and slam the door on it, very loudly.  De Gaulle or Mitterrand would have done so immediately, but Macron?  Being the ultimate spineless fake that he is, it would be miraculous if he did anything meaningful (other than brutally repressing all the riots in France).

At this time of writing the result of the elections in Germany are too close to call, but even if NS2 is allowed to function, the level of russophobic hysteria in Europe is so extreme that the following will almost certainly happen: the EU will continue with its rhetoric until the prices go even further up, at which point they will turn to the only country which the EU desperately need to survive: the much hated and feared Russia.  Don’t quote me on that, but last week I remember the following prices for 1000 cubic meters of gas in Europe (just under 1000 dollars), the Ukraine (1600 dollars) and Belarus (120 dollars).  I might have memorized this wrong (I was traveling), and this might have changed, but the bottom line is this: only Russia can’t give the EU the energy it needs, and she has exactly ZERO reasons to make those russophobic prostitutes any favors (other than symbolic).  And even if my memory played a trick on me, what is certain that the prices for energy are soaring, the EU reserves are very low, and the temperatures falling.  Welcome to the real world 🙂

I won’t even go into the “multiculturalism” “inclusivity” “positivity” and other Woke nonsense which most of the EU countries have accepted as dogmas (even Switzerland caved in).

The US is like an aircraft breaking apart in mid-air

As most of you know, I have decided to stay away from internal US politics (for many different reasons).  So I will just use a metaphor: the US is like an aircraft which, due to pilot incompetence and infighting, is breaking apart in mid-air with its passengers still arguing about who should be the next pilot as that could make any difference.  Some passengers will continue to argue until the hit the ground.  Others are engage in “mid-air fistfights” apparently believing that if they succeed in beating the crap out of the other guy, they will somehow prevent gravity from doing what it does.

The reality is much simpler: a system that is not viable AND which cannot reform itself (too busy with self-worshiping and blaming others for everything) can only do one thing: collapse and, probably, even break-apart.  Only after that can the US, or whatever the successor state(s) will be called, rebuilt itself into something totally different from the US which died chocking on its own arrogance this year (like all the other empires in history, by the way, the latest one being the Soviet one).

The Russian elections

The results are in and they are yet another galactic faceplant for the AngloZionist Empire.  The main Kremlin Party took a hit, the Communists did very well, Zhirinovski’s LDPR lost a lot and a new (moderately pro-Kremlin) party made it in for the first time.  Considering the many billions of dollars the West has spent on trying to create a Belarus-like crisis in Russia (Navalnyi, Petrov, Boshirov & Co.), this is yet another truly gigantic failure for the West.

If anything, the rise of the KPRF shows that a lot of people are fed up with two things: 1) what they see as a tepid, if not outright weak, Russian foreign policy towards the West and 2) with the liberal (economically speaking) policies of Putin and his entourage.

Absolutely NOBODY in Russia wants “better relations” or any kind of “dialog” with the rabidly russophobic West.  And to the extend that Russia and the USA simply *have* to talk to each other (being nuclear superpowers) they, of course, will.

But the EU as such is of zero interest to Russia.  And if Russia needs to get something done (like what anyway?), she will talk to the US, not its EU underlings.  For all its problems, the US still matters.  But the clowns of the EU?

[Sidebar: the word “Communist” usually elicits a knee-jerk reaction from brainwashed US Americans.  But for the rest of them, let me just say that while I don’t think the KPRF is what Russia needs and while I have nothing good to say about Ziuganov or most of the KPRF leadership, I will say that KPRF does not mean Gulags, hammers and sickles smashing Ukie babies, Russian tanks in downtown Warsaw or any such nonsense.  There are several “Communist” parties in Russia, and none of them are even remotely similar to the kind of party the bad old CPSU was.  So while US politicians feel very witty to speak of the CCP-virus and that kind of nonsense (Ted Cruz is officially my “favorite idiot” in Congress now), this is so far detached from any reality that I won’t even bother explaining it here.]

The COVID pandemic

Wow, just wow.  Where do I even begin???  Biden’s speech on this topic was hateful declaration of war on all those who don’t fully accept the “official” White House line.  The fact that many (most?) of those who do not accept the official party line DO accept an even dumber version of events does not make it right to force them into choosing between their beliefs and, say, their job, or their right to move around.

Again, after listening to Biden I kept wondering if he was a “Putin agent” as his actions are only accelerating the breakup of the “US aircraft” I mentioned above.  You can say many things about COVID-dissidents, but you can’t deny them two things: 1) a sincere belief in their ideas and 2) an equally sincere belief that their core freedoms, values and rights are trampled upon by pathological liars and crooks (aka politicians + BigPharma).

They will resist and, yes, violently if needed.  Because for them it is a both a matter of personal human dignity and even survival!

At least, and so far, the US still has a powerful Constitution which will make it very hard for the current nutcases in the White House to do what they apparently want to do (force 80M US Americans to obey “or else”).

Furthermore, Federal courts cannot be simply ignored.

Also, US states still have a lot of power.

Finally, most US Americans still hold dear the ideals of freedom, liberty, small government, privacy, etc. But EU countries have no such protections from governmental abuse: true, in the US these are all rights are weakened by the day if not the hour, but at least they have not been *officially* abrogated (yet?).

If you want to see how bad things can get without such rights, just look at the pandemic freak show in Canada, Australia or New Zealand!

Finally, and irrespective of its actual origin (I am still on the fence on that), the COVID pandemic wiped all the make-up and has showed the entire world the true face of the West and its rulers: weak, ignorant, arrogant, hypocritical cowards whose only true concern is to cover their butts and “grab whatever can be grabbed” before the inevitable and final explosion (nuclear, economic or social).

Now back the the Aussie SSNs

The sale/lease of these SSNs is not only a danger for China, but also one for Russia.

Simply put, Russia cannot and will not allow the Anglos to strangle China like they did with Japan before WWII.

The good news is this: the latest Russian SSNs/SSGNs are at least as good as the latest Seawolf/Virginia class, if not better.  Ditto for ASW capabilities.

What Russia does lack is the needed numbers (and Anglo submarine fleets are much lager, even “just” the USN alone) and funds, both of which China has (or can have).

From the Kremlin’s point of view, the Anglos are trying to create an “Asian NATO”, something which neither China nor Russia will allow.

The Chinese already informed the Aussies that they are now a legitimate target for nuclear strikes (apparently, Australia wants to become the “Poland of the Pacific”), while the Russians only made general comments of disapproval.

But take this to the bank: the Russian General Staff and the Chinese (who both probably saw this coming for a while) will jointly deploy the resources needed to counter this latest “brilliant idea” of the Anglos.

In purely military terms, there are many different options to deal with this threat, which ones China and Russia will chose will become apparent fairly soon because it is far better to do something prevent that delivery from actually happening than to deal with eight more advanced attack submarines.

By the way, the Russians are also semi-deploying/semi-testing an advanced SSK, the Lada-class, which has both very advanced capabilities and, apparently, still many problems.  SSKs are not capable of threatening SSNs in open (blue) waters, but in shallower (green/brown) waters such as straits or littorals, they can represent a very real threat, if only by “freeing up” the SNNs to go and hunt into the deep (blue) waters.  Also, the main threat for subs comes from the air, and here, again, China and Russia have some very attractive options.

Conclusion: interesting times for sure…

Like the Chinese curse says, we are living in very interesting times.

The quick collapse of the Empire and the US is, of course, inherently very dangerous for our planet.

But it is also a golden opportunity for Zone B nations to finally kick the Anglos out and regain their sovereignty.

True, the US still has a lot of momentum, just like a falling airliner would, but the fact  remains that 1) they ran from Afghanistan and 2) they are circling their Anglo wagons shows that somebody somewhere does “get it” and even understood that in spite of the huge political humiliation both of these development represent for narcissistic politicians and their followers, this was a price which absolutely HAD to be paid to (try) to survive.

In my article (infamous) analysis ” Will Afghanistan turn out to be US imperialism’s “Last Gleaming”?” (it triggered even more hysterics and insults than usual, at least on the Unz review comments section) I wrote this: “the British Empire had the means of its foreign policies. The US does not.”

This is now changing.

Yes, what the Anglos (aka 5 eyes) are doing is a retreat.  But it is a *smart* one.  They are cutting off all the “useless imperial weights” and going for the “smaller but stronger” option.

We might not like it, I certainly don’t, but I have to admit that this is pretty smart and even probably the only option left for the AngloZionist Empire.

At the very least, it is now clear that the Anglos have no allies, and never had them.

What they had where colonial coolies who imagined themselves as part of some “community of civilized, democratic and peace-loving, nations”.  These coolies are now left in limbo.

So, who will be the next one to show Uncle Shmuel to the door?  My guess is the Republic of Korea.  And, frankly, since the DPRK is not a country the Empire can take on, and since China will only increase its (already major) influence on both the DPRK and the ROK, the US might as well pack and leave (maybe for Australia or occupied Japan?).

Okay, end of this overview of developments.

Latest Developments in China (US Products)

Not reported in the English media is that all Chinese factories that are making products for the United States are now “power off” for much of the week. Supposedly this is part of the “Climate control agreement” that Biden and Xi Peng agreed upon.

What it functionally means is that factories (in China) that make American products must stop working for a set period of time per week depending on the percentage of American products that they export.  The rule sort of goes like this…

• • • <16% = One day no work.
    • 30% = Two days no work.
    • 45% = Three days no work.
    • 60% = Four days no work.
    • 75% = Five days no work.
    • 100% = No work allowed.

Keep in mind that in China every factory works a six day week.

Since exports to the United States make up around 10% of the total exports out of China, there will be some discomfort with this ruling.

Oh, and by the way…

Over the weekend, a major (retired) Senior CCP member wrote a strong worded letter to XIPeng that the situation with the United States is so serious that normal military use policies must be reconsidered. In specific, he advised that the “no use of military until attacked” be scrapped in favor of a “first strike – preventative posture” against openly belligerent and hostile forces.

This has been making it’s way though the Chinese social media and the overwhelming opinion that this is something that needs to be done immediately.

The Battle at Lake Changjin

China takes a page out of the West’s playbook in war movie production. The Battle at Lake Changjin about the Korean War (1950-53) deals with Chinese troops exploits during what’s known in China as the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea.

It’s this observer’s mind-set that echoes that of the West:

"In view of the long-lasting China-US strategic rivalry, China needs more films themed on the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, which is helpful to enhance China's cohesion and confidence, said Song Luzheng, an international relations researcher at the China Institute of Fudan University in Shanghai."

Oh, the film is a huge success, smashing all Chinese box office records.

Yes, the waking of the Dragon will be seen as a huge mistake by the West that ushered in its downfall.

Looks to be an OUTSTANDING MOVIE. It’s a true story. We see personal sacrifice. Bravery. Compassion and fierce loyality to the Chinese nation.

Check out this one minute video summary clip… VIDEO

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”?

CHINA RECONSIDERS…

From The Sun…

The global appeal for peace comes as a top Chinese diplomat warned his country to re-examine their promise to only use nukes in retaliation, in response to the new alliances forming in the region.

Beijing’s former ambassador to the UN, Sha Zukang said China must make the first nuclear strike against the US if Joe Biden continues to defend Taiwan.

He said:

"The unconditional no first use is not suitable . . . unless China-US negotiations agree that neither side would use [nuclear weapons] first, or the US will no longer take any passive measures to undermine the effectiveness of China’s strategic forces. 

The strategic pressure on China is intensifying as (the US) has built new military alliances and as it increases its military presence in our neighbourhood."

The threat came ahead of a meeting between the US, India, Japan and Australia – dubbed the Quad, in Washington, host by Joe Biden.

During a meeting of the China Arms Control and Disarmament Association in Beijing last week he said:

"The policy not to be the first to use nuclear weapons unconditionally has given China the moral high ground internationally. But for some time in the future, the US will see China as its main competitor and even its enemy. Can this policy be re- examined and fine-tuned?"

Final Comment

Do you all have a headache? I sure do. All of this bullshit is because a group of assholes in Washington DC have this deleterious fantasy of enslaving the world, and they are so fucking cock-sure that they can do it.

Enough of this craziness.

Time to relax.

Here’s a nice gif. It’s getting close to that time of the year.

When the weather started to get damp and cold, I would bring my kitties in and they would sit in front of the nice wood store and stare at it for hours.

Do you want more?

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

New Beginnings

.

Articles & Links

Master Index

.

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

I dedicate this article to "Nick" who asked what will the Middle East look like when China replaces the United States as the dominant nation.

I want to take a moment and acknowledge that there is a lot of historical events going on right now.  (Sigh.) They have been covered through the various “news” outlets over and over all with various “spins” and opinions. I am sure that you are all getting tired of this. Especially for youse Americans who are (probably) just exhausted by it all.

Yes, the pre-planned Clusterfuck in Kabul, or Bay of Pigs 2.0, or whatever shook the world as victims of 20 years of lies and death reasserted a modicum of control over their situation. The outrage and howling from the CIA-controlled media and the Establishment over Biden's correct decision is hilarious.

Posted by: gottlieb | Aug 22 2021 14:11 utc | 1

It’s been a very crazy week.

Personally, I’ve been a tad busy, but then you have the US failure in Afghanistan. But… is it really a failure, or just a regrouping?

The long-term optimism of China is great but the US does not care about that.  The US has not been number one at anything for a long time;  not education, literacy, healthcare, internet speed, and all the things called "human development".  At the turn of the century the U.S. ranked about 18 on the UN Human Development Index adjusted for equality.  Today it is 28.  

Yet if you ask the average American what country is the best in the world, he will say the US.  The people do not even realize how far they have fallen compared to the rest of the world.  That shows how good the US propaganda system is.  The US is #1 at propaganda.  #1 in military spending too, although the technology of the weapons is declining.  #1 in obesity.  #1 in junk culture.  Yes, bread and circus to keep the masses happy works.

The U.S. does not care about the development of the people.  It does not care about cooperation.  

The U.S. does not care about winning wars.  Wars are the end in itself.  It is how the wealth of the people is transferred upwards.  That is why during the "War OF Terror" the U.S. has been steadily declining "when adjusted for equality" from 18 to 28. 

The U.S. has not "lost" in Afghanistan, because it had nothing to lose.  Nor has the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan.  

It has just been a pivot.  

CIA special activities, special forces and mercenaries are "stay behinds".  They will now regroup the mujahideen and create a civil war that will last for another 20 years.  They will also intensify direction of the mujahideen to former Russian republics, Chechnya, Xinjiang, Myanmar, Thailand, and anywhere else they can get a foothold for regime change and to attack the BRI.

The US takes China and Russia's kindness as weakness.  It will take what kindness is offered and then stab the giver in the back.  The US will use whatever sabotage it can against the BRI.  

America is not interested in cooperation.  

The battlefield of propaganda has been well prepared for the American people.  They believe the US has many aggressive enemies, and all (illegal) US wars (of aggression) are defensive.  The vast majority believe anything from the CIA's Mighty Wurlitzer.

Regards,

[name withheld]

This (mid-August 2021) was a week where the U.S. retreat from Afghanistan overshadowed everything else. That is okay as huge consequences will flow from these events. The future history books (or what ever they will use) will record these events as one of the most significant dates and contributing events that will eventually lead up to the start of the “New Beginning” of the new global order.

And it will, as this comment foreshadows…

When will other occupied suzerainties ask Imperialist forces to leave? 

The Taliban has been fighting the Imperial forces since their occupation started. However, people in Germany, Japan, South Korea,… that have been occupied by the Imperialists over many decades do nothing. Aren’t they democracy? What does it tell about these SUZERAINTIES? What percentage of their transactions are in Imperialist’s currencies? Are you okay with imperialism? Imperialists go back!

Name a democracy that isn’t a suzerainty.

Will Afghanistan’s fiasco create any wave of change?

Posted by: Max | Aug 22 2021 14:23 utc | 3

Hey! What the heck is a “suzerainty”? That’s a new word for me.

"a position of control by a sovereign or state over another state that is internally autonomous." 

So, a nation can be under the control of another nation, while still having it’s own domestic laws, rules and culture. So Japan, would be under the control of the United States as a vassal state, but is still allowed to keep Japanese culture, society, laws and rules domestically. However, internationally, it must obey and do what ever the United States says.

The USA tells Japan to join the QUAD. They join the QUAD. The USA tells them to buy USA debt. They buy USA debt. But if the girls want to wear kimonos, watch strange television, and have a giant penis festival, that’s just fine.

So Japan is a suzerainty of the United States.

Hey! You learn something every day.

So it has got me to thinking. You know. I start to ponder things, and wonder about things. So, I wonder what the difference between a suzerainty and a “vassal state” is?

Vassal state

State
A vassal state is any state that has a mutual obligation to a superior state or empire, in a status similar to that of a vassal in the feudal system in medieval Europe. 

Vassal states were common among the Empires of the Near East, dating back to the era of the Egyptian, Hittite and Mitanni conflict, as well as Ancient China. 

The use of vassal states continued through the middle ages, with the last Empire to use such states being the Ottoman Empire. 

The relationships between vassal rulers and empires was dependent on the policies and agreements of each empire. 

While payment of tribute and military service is common amongst vassal states, the degree of independence and benefits given to vassal states varied. Today, more common terms are puppet state, protectorate, client state, associated state or satellite state.

-Wikipedia

So, to me it appears that as a Vassal State, the controlling Empire can also dictate domestic behaviors, society and laws as it deems necessary. While a suzerainty is permitted domestic autonomy.

We can thus think that a “suzerainty” is a subset of a “vassal state”.

Interesting stuff.

It puts the entire perspective of what the world really looks like and operates into a much greater perspective. And most certainly what the United States actually is in the greater scheme of things.

To the world at large, the United States is a big massive, bad bully. That if not “tamed” by the rest of the world, it will end up consuming it and destroying it. As stated in this video. Funny how this section was never shown on American media…

Some haggling seems to continue today but the outcome is assured.

Trump has something to say…

Yada, yada, yada.

Now for the “meat”…

Big warning; long read.

And as my articles tend to be long, expect this one to be encyclopedic. To fully understand what is transpiring in this far-away mountainous area you need to know some history. And Jeeze! There’s a lot of history.

By the time you are 25% done reading, you should be moe informed than a full 90% of the people around you. At 50%, that number jumps to 95%, and at the end of this article, you will be more informed than 99.99999% of those around you.

Such a responsibility!

Do you want this level of understanding?

We will avoid all the great pilliages of the Genghis Khan and the Persions and all the rest, and we will start when the UK British Empire decided to annex the region as a Vassal State.

Then we will explore how the Soviet Union Empire decided to annex the region as a Vassal State.

And finally, we will explore how the United States Military Empire decided to annes the region as a Vassal State.

Long read. As I said.

So first, some history…

The usual disclaimers apply. Content edited for this venue all credit to the original authors, etc.

Britain’s first war in Afghanistan: what happened and why?

HistoryEXTRA

Britain’s first war in Afghanistan took place in the Victorian era, beginning in 1839. Historian William Dalrymple explores the conflict in conversation with Rob Attar, in a piece first published in 2013, and discusses what parallels can be drawn with the fighting in recent years

British forces managed to recapture Kabul later that year and elsewhere laid waste to the countryside but eventually decided to pull out of the country altogether. Dost Mohammad returned to Kabul in 1843 and his dynasty would remain in power until the 1970s.

William Dalrymple, author of Return of a King: The Battle for Afghanistan, discusses the First Anglo-Afghan War in conversation with Rob Attar

How does your book change our understanding of the First Anglo-Afghan War?

It is one of those old chestnuts that’s already got a shelf-and-a-half of books written about it. So it seemed the only point of dedicating four years to this was to try to completely rewrite the story, obviously with a view to seeing it in the light of what is going on now, but more specifically trying to cover both sides of the story, which has never been done before. To date, not one book on the war has used a single Afghan source. Everything we have is entirely from the British side.

I did several trips to Afghanistan to search out more sources and by the end I had nine full-length Afghan accounts of the war. What emerged from them was that the war had a completely different dramatis personae and a more fractured regional make-up than the British seemed to be aware of. They saw an undifferentiated wall of bigoted bearded Afghans coming towards them but in reality the resistance was divided by tribe, ethnic group and language.

My most exciting find was the autobiography of Shah Shuja. He had been written off by the British and Afghan nationalists as a weak and hopeless guy, but I think he was wonderful. He was a poet, civilised and immensely likeable. He just didn’t have military luck ever in his career.

Astonishingly he was from the same sub-tribe, the Popalzai, as current Afghan president Hamid Karzai. We’ve put the same guy in twice! And he was brought down by the Ghilzai who today make up the foot soldiers of the Taliban. This is the same tribal war, continuing under slightly different flags, 170 years later.

Has your research changed your view of the First Anglo-Afghan War’s origins?

The account I give is subtly, but not completely, changed from previous versions. The basic reason for the British invasion was a blown-up fear of Russian intervention and here there are parallels, oddly enough, with the war in Iraq, with a ‘dodgy dossier’. A group of hawks manipulated intelligence to exaggerate a threat that didn’t exist in reality as substantially as they thought it did.

There was this episode when a young great gamer, Sir Henry Rawlinson, was riding through Persia to join the Shah of Persia’s camp in the north-west of the country. One night Rawlinson found himself in the very dodgy borderlands between Persia and Afghanistan and, just as dawn was breaking, he witnessed a party of horsemen coming down the valley towards him. He saw that they were Russian Cossacks heading in the direction of the Afghan border. He headed them off at the top of the pass and found them eating their breakfast.

There was a young Russian officer who refused to talk to him in Russian, Persian or French but agreed to chat in Jagatai Turkish. He told Rawlinson he was on his way to the Persian camp so Rawlinson rode straight there to see the Shah. The Shah said that the Russians were nothing to do with him but were going to open diplomatic relations with Dost Mohammad in Kabul.

This was the yellowcake of its day [in 2002, it was claimed that Saddam Hussein had been trying to obtain yellowcake uranium to develop weapons of mass destruction]. For 30 years hawks had been worrying about Russia moving towards Afghanistan and there was this whole literature already in London about Russia taking Afghanistan then sweeping down the Khyber and expelling the British from India. There was no evidence for this at all until this chance discovery.

There was this new governor general, Lord Auckland, who had inherited a group of belligerently hawkish and Russophobic advisors, led by the hopeless William Macnaghten. They ignored the advice of the one British official in India who really knew Afghanistan, Alexander Burnes. He was sending despatches saying that Dost Mohammad wanted to ally with the British rather than the Russians, but they didn’t listen and advised Auckland to oust Dost Mohammad and bring in what they described as the ‘ousted legitimate ruler’ Shah Shuja.

How did the British fare in the early military operations?

The war followed the same trajectory as the current conflict. Everyone warned that it would be catastrophically difficult, but in fact they conquered the country almost instantly with minimal casualties. Then you had, as happened in 2001, the government crowing that they’d seen off the naysayers and it was going to be easy.

For the first year it did seem to be so.

The Afghans were very friendly and their noblemen went hunting, did amateur theatricals and played cricket with the British. But slowly it began to unravel, from Helmand, working northwards. There was more and more resistance until the British found themselves surrounded in Kabul without any control of the countryside around it. Again, it was exactly the same as the situation today.

Where did this resistance come from?

Here my interpretation is different from that of the British. They assumed that the Afghans were rising up against Shah Shuja as much as themselves but it’s quite clear that a lot of the resistance was from irritated royalists who wanted Shah Shuja to shed his allegiance to the British. They thought the British were abusing agreements he’d made with them, which was indeed the case.

The initial idea had been that Shah Shuja would be given rule and the British would just help him enforce it, but, rather like with the tensions between Karzai and the British and Americans, increasingly the British got irritated with their own puppet and tried to bully him or take unilateral action. Macnaghten and Burnes gradually despaired of ever running Shah Shuja effectively and just took control of Afghanistan themselves.

What we get very clearly from Afghan sources is the motivations of individual leaders, which were all quite different. Abdullah Khan Achakzai was a young aristocrat whose girlfriend was seduced by Burnes, so for him it was a personal slight. He made a wonderful speech the night before the rebellion saying: “We have to put a stop right here and now, otherwise these English will ride the donkey of their desires into the field of stupidity, to the point of having us all arrested and deported into foreign imprisonment.”

Aminullah Khan Logari was a self-made man who had worked his way up for over 60 years of service. He was treated very peremptorily by a young British official who threw him off his lands. It was people such as Logari and Achakzai who kicked the whole thing off. They called everyone to arms and, within a few days, 50,000 had gathered in Kabul to fight the British.

Did the British just retreat then?

There were two quite substantial battles that they lost through their incompetence and then they retreated. It was during the retreat under the promise of safekeeping that they got shot down. The East India Company at the time still used the Brown Bess musket, which was great in a flat European field like Waterloo but couldn’t fire long distances or uphill. The Afghans had these clumsy big jezails that took an hour to load but nonetheless could fire a mile downhill and were perfect for mountain warfare.

How did the British allow this catastrophe to happen?

It was quite fantastically incompetent British leadership. As well as Burnes and Macnaghten, who were always at each other’s necks, there was this gout-ridden old general called William Elphinstone who hadn’t seen action since the battle of Waterloo and was an invalid. On the first morning of the revolt he tried to get on his horse, which fell on top of him and he was more or less out of the action from there. By their own indecision and hopelessness the British lost the war very quickly. They lost all their food and ammunition within about 48 hours and it was only a matter of time before they had to retreat.

Was it a political or military decision to pull out of the country altogether?

Retreat was inevitable once they’d lost their food and ammunition, so that was a military decision. The Kabul garrison was wiped out but there were others surviving in Jalalabad and Kandahar. They were reinforced and the following spring they returned and laid waste to southern Afghanistan.

This army of retribution committed war crimes on a grand scale, raping and murdering women and children.

After that, the decision to pull out was an economic one and this is also true of the later conflicts. Resistance can be defeated but only at huge cost, because the country is so diffused and the geography makes it so difficult. Plus there is no way of defraying the cost of the occupation. If you invade Iraq you can take the oil, or in the Punjab you can tax the rich, fertile land, but the entire tax revenue of Afghanistan never paid then and doesn’t pay now even a fraction of the cost of occupation.

How might your book inform policy makers today?

I do think there’s a huge amount to be learned from the Afghan version of events. It gives a precision into understanding the resistance, which has been lacking to date.

The story of the First Anglo-Afghan War provides clear warnings about the dangers of being trapped in Kabul, surrounded and with no allies, having fallen out with the people you put into power.

The problem is that each generation fails to learn these lessons.

George Lawrence was one of the troops taken hostage during the retreat and so survived to write his memoirs. He saw history repeating itself in the 1870s with the Second Anglo-Afghan War and he roused himself to write a letter to The Times. He said:

“A new generation has arisen, which instead of profiting from the solemn lessons of the past, is willing and eager to embroil us in the affairs of that turbulent and unhappy country… The disaster of the retreat from Kabul should stand forever as a warning to the statesmen of the future not to repeat the policies that bore such butter fruit in 1839–42.”

He wasn’t listened to in 1870, and this is now the fourth lost Afghan war.

William Dalrymple is an award-winning writer and historian based in India. His books include The Anarchy: The Relentless Rise of the East India Company (Bloomsbury, 2019), Koh-i-Noor: The History of the World’s Most Infamous Diamond, co-authored with Anita Anand (Bloomsbury, 2017) and Return of a King: The Battle for Afghanistan (Bloomsbury, 2014) 

This article was first published in the February 2013 issue of BBC History Magazine

So what the heck is going on?

Lessons of the Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan

Middle East Policy Council

After Soviet forces withdrew from Afghanistan in 1988-89, the regime it was defending there fell. This experience contributes to present fears that, if America withdraws from Afghanistan, the regime it is defending will also fall. A closer look at Soviet and Russian actions between 1988 and 1992, though, suggests that this need not have been the result then — and that it need not be the result of an American withdrawal now either.

The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in December 1979 to prop up the Marxist regime that had come to power the previous year but which appeared to be on the verge of collapse.

Unlike the Soviet invasions of Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, however, Soviet forces encountered prolonged resistance that they were unable to defeat.

In order to promote his goals of domestic reform and improving Moscow’s relations with the West, Gorbachev withdrew Soviet forces from Afghanistan (which he had termed a “bleeding wound”) between May 1988 and February 1989.

At the time, it was widely predicted that the Marxist regime Moscow had been supporting in Afghanistan would fall within a few months — or even weeks — of the final departure of Soviet forces.

The regime of President Najibullah, however, survived until April 1992, over three years after the Soviet withdrawal.

Several factors contributed to the regime’s longevity, including the continuation of Soviet military and economic assistance, the mistakes made by some of the mujahideen (the Afghan forces that had fought against the Soviet occupation) as well as their Pakistani supporters, divisions among the various mujahideen groups, and the Najibullah regime’s successful exploitation of these problems.

After the downfall of Gorbachev and of the Soviet Union itself in December 1991, though, Moscow’s assistance to Najibullah ended.

Without this assistance, Najibullah was unable to continue effectively exploiting the weaknesses of his adversaries. Instead, they were able to exploit his, and so his regime fell. This paper will examine how Moscow’s actions helped Najibullah survive but then contributed to his downfall, as well as how Moscow’s actions affected the other factors influencing the fortunes of the Afghan Marxist regime.

1989-91: Soviet Support for Kabul Continues

Although the Soviet troop presence in Afghanistan ended in February 1989, large-scale Soviet military and economic assistance to its Marxist protégés there continued.

As Soviet troops withdrew, they left behind literally all their matériel except for the vehicles needed to transport them back over the border. In addition, as Soviet forces withdrew from Eastern Europe following the downfall of communist regimes there in late 1989, some of this weaponry was transferred to Afghanistan.

From early 1989 to late 1991, Soviet assistance to Kabul reportedly amounted to $300 million per month. Perhaps this is not a large figure by today’s standards, but it was a much greater amount than the mujahideen were receiving after the Soviet withdrawal, and was a considerable financial burden on the economically beleaguered USSR.

Weaponry that Moscow supplied to Kabul included MiG- 27 fighter jets (the Afghan Marxist regime had an air force with some 200 aircraft plus helicopters). In addition, as Zalmay Khalilzad (whom President George W. Bush appointed as special presidential envoy for Afghanistan and then U.S. ambassador to Kabul) noted in 1991,

Moscow has provided more than thirteen hundred Scud-B missiles, hundreds of shorter range Frogs, several hundred tanks, and sixteen hundred five-ton trucks. To keep Kabul supplied, the Soviets launched the biggest air supply effort in its history, sending some twenty-five or more IL-76 transport planes to Kabul each day for much of 1989 (Khalilzad 1991, 82-83).

Indeed, all this was reportedly more than the Marxist regime could effectively use. To help them, though, Moscow left behind about 300 advisers, some of whom reportedly participated in the firing of the Scud missiles at mujahideen targets. (In addition to a regular army of 55,000 men, the Kabul regime also had the support of a 10,000-strong presidential guard and various militias, including an especially effective one raised and led by the ethnic Uzbek leader, General Abdul Rashid Dostum.)

When the Soviets withdrew, much of the anti-foreign-presence motivation for many Afghans to fight with the mujahideen disappeared.

Indeed, some mujahideen groups themselves appeared tainted for being so very close to Pakistan. Soviet assistance also allowed Kabul to effectively compete with Pakistan and the various mujahideen groups based there in paying off local commanders and tribal leaders inside Afghanistan.

While Pakistan tied its support to various mujahideen groups not only to whether or not they fought against Kabul but whether they did so in the manner specified by the ISI, Kabul gave support to various groups just in exchange for not fighting against it. As Khalilzad noted at the time, “Najib’s offer is more attractive than ISI’s; while ISI wants it clients to fight and risk their lives, Najib is willing to pay if the commanders agree not to fight” (Khalilzad 1991, 81).

Further, the groups Pakistan supported were not always effective. In March 1989, some 15,000 Pakistani-backed mujahideen forces attacked the town of Jalalabad. Their unwillingness to accept prisoners, though, meant that the defending government forces had strong motivation to fight on. Although the mujahideen laid siege to the town, the Kabul government was able to resupply and reinforce its garrison by air, launch a counterattack, and break the siege by mid-May 1989. This was a major humiliation for Pakistan and its allies.

In addition to military assistance, though, Moscow provided Kabul with key economic assistance. As mujahideen forces approached Kabul and interrupted the supply of food and other consumer goods into the city, the Soviets airlifted these commodities to the Afghan capital.

At Moscow’s urging, the Kabul regime attempted to broaden the basis of its support by downplaying its Marxist nature, appointing non-Marxists to visible positions and trying to appeal to nationalism.

According to contemporary accounts, though, these efforts were not particularly successful, as the Marxist regime — especially President Najibullah — was extremely unpopular with the Afghan population. Indeed, while outwardly broadening the base of the regime, it appears that Najibullah actually narrowed it by increasing reliance on his hard-core supporters.

But while Najibullah and his regime lacked popular support, the mujahideen themselves frequently provided Afghans with strong incentive either to support the Marxist regime or to see it as the lesser of two evils. The mujahideen’s efforts to impose an economic blockade on Kabul as well as their periodically shelling it did nothing to endear them to the citizens of the capital.

Even worse, when the mujahideen captured the town of Khost in March 1991, they not only looted it but killed all the government forces they had captured instead of holding them prisoner. This action not only created fear in other towns; it also made clear to irresolute government forces that defecting to the mujahideen was probably not an option for them.

Mujahideen groups also fought among themselves, and this was something that the Marxist government was able to exploit. As was noted in the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Strategic Survey 1989-1990,

…by early 1990, although the mujahideen continued to control the bulk of the countryside, most of them had in effect ceased being mujahideen, in the sense that they were no longer fighting against the central government, but were instead attempting to work out compromises with Kabul which would ensure their local power, particularly against their former fellow comrades in arms. 

Most local commanders had reverted to the traditional relationship between local powers and a weak central state that has shaped Afghan history since the eighteenth century. 

The central state is seen less as an enemy than as a referee which can help to promote the interests of the local group. 

This development was expected to play a decisive role after the collapse of the Najibullah regime, not before. 

That it has come into play so soon is a result of the unexpected adroitness of the regime, aided by the ineffectiveness of US-Pakistan policies (IISS 1990, 160).

At the time, Khalilzad seemed to suggest that the Afghan Marxist regime might even come out on top in the ongoing conflict, when he noted that the Kabul regime “…is likely to increase its efforts to reach out to make deals with commanders and the supporters of the former king at the expense of the majority of the Peshawar-based leadership. Should it succeed, it can reduce the fighting in the country” (Khalilzad 1991, 84).

1992: Russian Support Ends

But, of course, the Afghan Marxist regime did fall in April 1992. Once again, Russian actions appear to have played a key role in bringing this about.

Shortly after the failed August 1991 coup attempt in Moscow and under very different political circumstances, Moscow and Washington agreed to stop aiding their respective Afghan allies as of January 1, 1992.

Not only did Moscow end its arms supply to Kabul, but it also stopped providing it with food and fuel. By contrast, although Pakistan had agreed to stop aiding the mujahideen, Saudi aid to them via Pakistan continued.

Shortly after this in February 1992, Najibullah (a Pushtun) apparently tried to bolster his authority over the Uzbek militia chieftain Dostum by appointing a fellow Pushtun as a commander in the northwestern Uzbek heartland.

But if this was his intention, it backfired in April 1992, when Dostum defected from the government and joined forces with long-time anti-Soviet Tajik mujahideen commander Ahmad Shah Massoud (whose relationship with both Pakistan and the Pushtun mujahideen groups it supported was adversarial). Non-Pushtun forces from the north and Pushtun forces from the south then rushed to capture Kabul, with the Marxist regime splitting along ethnic lines and either joining forces or making deals with their ethnic kin.

Najibullah resigned and sought sanctuary inside the UN compound in Kabul after his attempt to reach the airport was blocked (by his erstwhile ally Dostum, according to some).

The Islamic State of Afghanistan was declared, but the mujahideen remained divided.

After a short, sharp battle for control of Kabul, the Dostum-Massoud alliance prevailed over their Pushtun opponents, for the time being. Russia appeared to play no role in these events.

Conclusions from the Russian Experience

Six observations can be made about the events described here:

First, even after the withdrawal of Soviet forces was completed in February 1989, Soviet military and economic assistance enabled an unpopular regime to remain in power in Afghanistan — at least, in the major population centers — for over three years.

Second, despite continuing to receive significant aid from Pakistan and other nations, the mujahideen were unable to overthrow the Afghan Marxist regime so long as that regime was receiving significant aid from the Soviet Union.

Third, opposition to the Afghan Marxist regime appeared to decline after Soviet troops withdrew. Further, while they had not performed effectively during the period of Soviet occupation, the effectiveness of Afghan government forces increased significantly after the Soviet withdrawal.

Fourth, after Soviet assistance to Kabul ended at the beginning of 1992, the Afghan Marxist regime’s strength declined rapidly.

Fifth, the collapse of the regime in April 1992, though, was not due just (or perhaps even mainly) to the actions of the Pakistani-backed Pushtun mujahideen. Indeed, the immediate downfall of the regime was precipitated by the defection of the previously pro-regime Uzbek militia leader, Dostum, to the side of the non-Pushtun opposition to the regime.

Sixth, as the collapse of the regime approached, the most salient division in Afghanistan was not Marxist vs. Islamist, but Pushtun vs. non-Pushtun.

History, of course, is not destined to repeat itself. These six observations from the 1989-92 period, however, may have salience for the present as well as the short- and medium-term future. They suggest the following:

First, even after the withdrawal of ISAF forces is completed by the end of 2014, American and allied military and economic assistance to the current less-than-popular Karzai government may enable it to remain in power in the major population centers.

Second, the Taliban are not destined to return to power, despite the likelihood that they will continue to receive Pakistani assistance so long as the Kabul government continues to receive significant aid from America and its coalition partners.

Third, opposition to the Karzai government may actually decline after the American and coalition withdrawal. Once they are responsible for their own survival, the effectiveness of Afghan government forces may quickly increase.

Fourth, if American and allied support for it ends, the Kabul government’s strength is highly likely to decline rapidly.

Fifth, under these circumstances, ethnic divisions within the Kabul government leadership are likely to become exacerbated. It is highly likely that the non-Pushtun officer corps would seek to oust the Pushtun president, Hamid Karzai, and his entourage.

Sixth, even if (indeed, especially if) the Taliban manage to seize control of Kabul once again, the most salient division within Afghanistan is once again likely to be Pushtun vs. non-Pushtun.

Well that was pretty dry and scholarly…

And yeah. That’s what it was.

Real events are colorful, painful, full of joy and sadness. They are visceral.  Here’s a far better explanation…

Afghanistan: The Soviet Union’s War in Vietnam

By William Stroock

In late 1979, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan was torn apart by a civil war pitting the weak Communist government of Hafizullah Amin against several moderate and fundamentalist Muslim rebel armies.