The USA’s “Rule Base International Order” is exactly the power of an Emperor Dictative System.

Lots of war talk. Don’t worry too much about it. Stay calm.

Nutcases in the USA.

Pay attention.

Australian trade minister visits China to seek cooperation as ties face ‘important window’

Australia’s Trade Minister Don Farrell on Thursday traveled to China for talks with Chinese Minister of Commerce Wang Wentao and other Chinese officials and business representatives, in a bid to promote cooperation with China after an extended period of tension prompted by a series of hostile Australian moves against China.

Following increasing interaction between Chinese and Australian officials in recent months, China-Australia relations have significantly improved and stabilized, and the Australian side should respect China’s core interests as a prerequisite and political foundation for improving, upholding and further developing bilateral relations, Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian told the Global Times.

While the business communities of the two countries, especially Australian traders, hail the improving signs in bilateral ties, concerns remain over Canberra’s treatment of Chinese firms and its hostile words and deeds, taken in lockstep with the US, on certain issues related to China’s core interests such as the Taiwan question, experts noted, urging Canberra to take concrete steps to further improve ties.

Crucial visit

After Farrell issued a statement announcing his visit, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) on Thursday also confirmed the trip. During a regular press briefing, Shu Jueting, a MOFCOM spokesperson, said that Farrell will visit China from Thursday to Saturday, during which the two ministers will co-chair the 16th Joint Ministerial Economic Commission meeting.

“The Chinese side hopes that through this ministerial visit, we will further implement the important consensus reached by the two leaders in Bali [Indonesia], have in-depth exchange of views on developing bilateral economic and trade relations and properly handling each other’s important relations, and promote the development of China-Australia practical economic and trade cooperation,” Shu said.

The Farrell visit followed a series of high-level interactions between the two sides, including the meeting between the leaders of the two countries in Bali in November 2022 and meetings between foreign ministers. Wang and Farrell also held virtual talks in February.

Since the Australian Labor Party government took office, through the joint efforts of both sides, there has been frequent high-level interactions and close practical cooperation in various fields between the two countries, and China-Australia relations have significantly improved and stabilized, Chinese Ambassador to Australia Xiao Qian told the Global Times in an exclusive interview.

“I look forward to Mr Farrell’s visit to China to further promote Australia’s practical cooperation with China and benefit the two peoples,” said Xiao, “At present, China-Australia relations are showing a momentum of stable and sound development, and bilateral economic and trade relations are facing an important window.”

Also commenting on Farrell’s visit, Wang Wenbin, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said on Thursday that China-Australia bilateral economic and trade cooperation is mutually beneficial and win-win, and improving, maintaining and developing China-Australia relations is in the fundamental interests of the two countries and the two peoples.

The Farrell visit and growing interactions between Chinese and Australian officials are particularly encouraging for businesses on both sides, as they are keen on boosting cooperation.

“Recent ministerial meetings have demonstrated that both sides are keen to start a process of more open and more constructive dialogues to address differences and explore opportunities to work more closely in areas where interests are aligned,” David Olsson, president and chair of Australia China Business Council, said in a recent interview with the Global Times, “Hopefully, we will return to a situation where dialogue becomes a habit.”

Bilateral relations witnessed a downward spiral in the years prior to November 2022 due to the previous Australian government’s hostile words and deeds against China, including banning Chinese firms such as Huawei, provocations in the South China Sea and tearing up the Belt and Road Initiative cooperation documents. That prompted the Chinese side to suspend certain official exchanges, some Chinese firms to avoid Australia to fend off risks and many Chinese consumers to call for a boycott of Australian goods. Instead of reflecting on its wrong words and deeds, Canberra then accused China of “economic coercion.”

“The so-called economic coercion by China against Australia is completely false,” Xiao said, stressing that Chinese trade actions were in line with WTO rules. “Fundamentally speaking, all of this is a response to the wrong words and deeds of the previous Australian government.”

Amid growing calls from Australia’s business community, the new Australian government under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has been pushing for improving ties, particularly the trade and economic ties with China.

“China’s economic value is irreplaceable to Australia,” Zhou Fangyin, deputy dean of the Guangdong Institute for International Strategies, told the Global Times on Thursday, pointing to Australia’s record-high exports to China in March, which helped Australia record a trade surplus of about A$15.3 billion ($10.2 billion). “This shows the importance of stabilizing China-Australia economic and trade cooperation to Australia.”

China’s concerns

However, despite Australia’s keenness to boost trade with China, more concerted efforts are needed to further improve ties, analysts noted. China’s core concerns must be respected and addressed by the Australian side, in order to further promote bilateral cooperation, Chinese officials and analysts said.

“It is hoped that the Australian side will earnestly abide by the one-China principle, an important prerequisite and political basis for improving, upholding, and further developing China-Australia relations, and earnestly respect each other’s core interests and major concerns,” Xiao said.

Xiao stressed that the Taiwan question concerns China’s core interests and is not subject to any external interference or political manipulation. Also, China is firmly opposed to the AUKUS clique of the US, UK and Australia, the Chinese ambassador said.

Outstanding issues also remain in the field of trade. Chinese officials have repeatedly said that they are closely following Australia’s tightened security review of Chinese companies’ investment and operations in Australia and they hope that Australia can appropriately handle relevant cases and provide a fair, open, and equal business environment for Chinese companies.

Citing national security concerns, Australia authorities have been tightening their scrutiny over Chinese firms. In February, Australian officials blocked Chinese investment in a rare-earth firm, citing national interests, according to Reuters. Then in April, Australia followed the US in banning TikTok, owned by a Chinese firm, from all federal government-owned devices, prompting a harsh response from MOFCOM, which called the move a “discriminatory restrictive measure.”

While Australia is hoping to boost trade with China, it is also closely following the US politically and diplomatically, Song Wei, a professor at the school of international relations and diplomacy at Beijing Foreign Studies University, told the Global Times on Thursday.

“This kind of tightrope walking is unsustainable and will bring potential risks to China-Australia economic and trade cooperation and affect business confidence in cooperation and investment,” Song said, “If China-Australia relations are to develop sustainably and healthily in the future, it is clear that the Australian government needs to make more efforts and be more sincere to eliminate this potential risk.”

Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg meets NATO troops at an airbase in Tallinn, Tuesday, March 1, 2022. (Leon Neal/Pool Photo via AP) [AP Photo/Leon Neal]

Since the start of the Ukraine war in 2022, the White House and the entire US media has proclaimed that the conflict was an “unprovoked war” launched by a single man, Vladimir Putin, on February 24, 2022.

The phrase “unprovoked” has become ubiquitous in the US media’s description of the war. The Washington Post, New York Times and broadcast news have used the phrase hundreds of times.

In an op-ed published Wednesday, Thomas Friedman, the Times’ chief transcriber of CIA intelligence briefs, wrote, “From the start of this war, there has been only one place to be to understand its timing and direction — and that’s in Vladimir Putin’s head… this war emerged entirely from there.”

The mantra of the “unprovoked war” has become to Ukraine what “weapons of mass destruction” was to the Iraq War, or “Remember the Maine” was to the Spanish-American War.

The idea behind the endless repetition is the theory that “the bigger the lie, the more readily it will be believed.” The public is expected to accept that this is the first war in history without any historical antecedents or economic motives, the first war based entirely on the psychology of one man.

But on Tuesday, the Washington Post published an interview with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who stated that the war in Ukraine “didn’t start in 2022. The war started in 2014.”

Stoltenberg continued, “And since then, NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War… Until 2014, NATO allies were reducing defense budgets. Since 2014, all allies across Europe and Canada have significantly increased their defense spending. … this is a huge transformation of NATO that started in 2014.”

Thus, according to Stoltenberg, the war did not begin in February 2022, with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but in 2014, eight years earlier.

This admission confirms two points that the World Socialist Web Site has made repeatedly since the outbreak of the war. First, that the conflict has a historical background. Second, that the 2022 invasion was a desperate response to the escalating efforts of NATO to bring Ukraine into its orbit.

Stoltenberg states that the war began in 2014, but he does not explain what actually happened. The year began with the US-backed regime change operation in Ukraine, overthrowing the government of President Victor Yanukovych, who had opposed measures to integrate Ukraine into a political association and trade pact with the EU, which was itself preparing for integration into NATO.

The coup was financed by what US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland boasted was “over $5 billion” in US funding.

The overthrow of the Yanukovych government was spearheaded by fascistic and ferociously anti-Russian organizations, including Right Sector and the Svoboda Party. In the following years, the government of Petro Poroshenko, installed after the coup, carried out violence and repression against the Russian-speaking population of eastern Ukraine, leading to the deaths of over 14,000 people between 2014 and 2022.

The US- and NATO-backed regime change operation, as the WSWS noted in 2014, had “the intention of provoking a confrontation with Russia.”

The coup did provoke a response by the Kremlin, which understood that it would hand control over the Crimean peninsula, the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, to NATO. This would allow the United States to station its own fleet at the Port of Sevastopol, giving the US military dominance over the Black Sea.

In response, Russia annexed Crimea following a referendum in which the overwhelming majority of the population of the enclave supported leaving Ukraine.

While publicly claiming to support a ceasefire under the framework of the “Minsk Accords,” the NATO powers instead worked systematically to funnel billions of dollars in weaponry into Ukraine in preparation for a war, the aim of which would be the reconquest of eastern Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula.

In 2021, the Ukrainian government approved a strategy for the military reconquest of the Crimean peninsula, which was then de facto codified with the US-Ukrainian Strategic Partnership of November 2021.

In demanding assurances prior to the outbreak of the war that Ukraine would not join NATO, Putin explained that if Ukraine became a NATO member, the entire NATO alliance would be pledged to support Ukraine in a war to reconquer Crimea, which, he said, would lead to a nuclear war between NATO and Russia.

The invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 was the reaction of the Putin government, representing a faction of the Russian oligarchy, seeking to defend its interests while at the same time hoping that it could reach some sort of accommodation with the imperialist powers.

The US and NATO, however, are determined to realize through the war the aims that motivated the 2014 coup. Later in the interview with the Post, Stoltenberg declared that “all NATO allies agree that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance,” contradicting the ubiquitous claims by the US media and political establishment that the Russian government’s concerns about Ukraine joining NATO were simply made up.

Stoltenberg’s declaration is, in effect, a pledge to plunge NATO headlong into direct conflict with Russia.

The lie of the “unprovoked war” has been accepted and promoted not only by the political establishment and the state-controlled media in the US, but also, shamefully, by the vast majority of academics. Outside of the meetings held by the International Youth and Students for Social Equality, there has been no serious attempt on campuses to explain the underlying background and causes of the war.

Of particular significance is the ferociously pro-war and pro-imperialist position taken by nominally “socialist” organizations—that in fact represent privileged sections of the upper middle class—which have completely endorsed the propaganda narrative.

The pro-CIA Pabloite publication, International Viewpoint, for example, published a statement by the “Russian Socialist Movement” on May 1 denouncing “half-solidarity and false pacifism” which “makes morally problematic any form of alignment with military preparations of one’s own government.”

In other words, it is the task of “the left” to support the military actions of the US and NATO powers, because to do otherwise would be to serve as “the instrument of the aggressor”—Russia. The statement ends with a call for “increased arms transfers to Ukraine which will enable it to return its annexed territories.” On all points, International Viewpoint merely echos the statements of Stoltenberg himself.

All of those social forces that have defended Washington’s propaganda narrative stand exposed by the war. Far from constituting “defensive” actions to save Ukrainian lives from Russian attacks, the United States is determined to fight till the last Ukrainian to achieve its goals of reconquering the Crimean peninsula and imposing a strategic defeat on Russia.

The more the war continues and expands, the more nakedly its imperialist character emerges. It is becoming clear that American imperialism, not content with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is seeking the military defeat, breakup and conquest of Russia, as the prelude to an effort to militarily subjugate China.

Hang on! US Threatens to BOMB Taiwan if China invades, SERIOUSLY!

Taiwan is China!

Punkin Center Green Chile Chuck

Yield: 6 to 8 servings

Ingredients

• 1/2 cup vegetable oil
• 1 (4 to 6 pound) chuck roast
• 1 large onion, chopped
• 3 roasted green chiles, skins and seeds removed, chopped, or 1 (7 ounce) can chopped green chiles
• 1 (12 ounce) can beer

Instructions

1. In a Dutch oven, heat oil hot. Sear roast on both sides.
2. Add onion and chiles. Turn roast to cover fully with chiles and onion. Pour beer around sides of roast. Sprinkle with salt, pepper and garlic salt; cover with tight lid. Place over low heat. Cook for 1 2 to 2 hours.

Notes

It will fall apart and is SO GOOD!

Tesla is too backward and cannot complete:

The United States had three core strengths that made them the world’s best and most attractive friend

A. Capital Markets — A Place where anyone could raise money with minimal regulations in the Billions of Dollars

B. Technology — Core Technology

C. Defence — Arms and Equipment enough to choke a Horse

These were their Greatest Strengths where Nobody could compete with them , at least not for a foreseeable 50 years minimum

THEY RUINED IT ALL

Their Debt, Politics and Mismanagement plus their weaponization of the dollar vide sanctions has decimated the opportunities that their Capital Markets. Noone wants to invest in US Capital Markets at the risk of losing it all to Sanctions at a later day

Open Source has decimated 50% of US Core Technology in areas of AI and Internet. No more Patents and Copyrights and License. Likewise US control of technology has slipped in the last 30 years as China and Japan and Korea now control almost 27% of Core Technology in 2022 compared to 3.5% in 1997

As for Defence, more and more nations want peace and less war and US Defence finds itself overproducing and lacking demand. No Country will sell itself today for a F-35

---

Now they are doing exactly what China wants them to do

Competing in Areas they have Zero expertise in

I mean US hasn’t built Railways in 60 years and has no industrial hub system

UAE? Nopes

India? Nopes

How the hell will these three countries hope to develop a railway line at China’s quality

China builds Railways every minute or every day somewhere around the world

It’s their bread and butter

They are masters of building and envisioning rail lines, signal systems and even making them cloud compliant

They can beat US in their SLEEP

Sure US can threaten and India can keep saying “Democracy” but they don’t stand a chance in front of China’s ruthless efficiency and economics

Ultimately the US will dump printed dollars, India will bungle things like they always do through delays and more delays and UAE will back out

It’s literally the STUPIDEST THING to compete with China in areas like Infrastructure or Railways or Solar Panels where they can crush you like a bedbug

It’s like China competing with US and offering ARM technology to Countries or offering Shanghai market to Companies from that country

You PLAY TO YOUR STRENGTHS

US is playing in all areas where it has absolutely zero expertise and roping in India which has probably 10%

Once again using Bullying, Threats and Politics over Economic Sense and developing their Tecnological Gap advantage which is narrowing every minute with the rest of the world

---

Trust me CHINA is laughing

The US is doing exactly what they wanted the US to do

Leave it’s strengths and compete with China in areas like Infrastructure and Railways and Commercial Drones and Rare Earth’s where China holds a huge edge and can easily parry and beat anyone

That keeps the US from developing their greatest strengths like Capital Markets or Technology and so every day China moves ahead and closer to the US

Blinken is the STUPIDEST Moron the world has ever seen

This Is How To Start A War With Russia!

The Organisation for Economic Co‐​operation and Development (OECD)—an intergovernmental organization with 38 member countries—has published new data showing that the United States is losing the race for scientific talent to China and other countries. China’s strategy to recruit scientific researchers to work at China‐​affiliated universities is working.

In 2021, the United States lost published research scientists to other countries, while China gained more than 2,408 scientific authors. This was a remarkable turnaround from as recently as 2017 when the United States picked up 4,292 scientists and China picked up just 116. As Figure 1 shows, the rest of the OECD and China have both surpassed the United States for net inflow of scientific authors.

The OECD data are not measuring the movement of non‐​Chinese into China or non‐​Americans into the United States. The OECD tracks inflows and outflows of published scientific researchers based on changes in institutional affiliation. If an author who was previously affiliated with a different country publishes another article in a new country, the new country will be credited as receiving a new research scientist. The OECD credits more Chinese scientists returning to China for the sudden reversal in Chinese and American inflows.

This is a disturbing trend that started before the pandemic. In fact, it appears to coincide with the Trump administration’s “China Initiative”—more accurately titled the anti‐Chinese initiative. Launched in November 2018, the Department of Justice’s campaign was supposed to combat the overblown threat of intellectual property theft and espionage. In reality, it involved repeatedly intimidating institutions that employed scientists of Chinese heritage and attempting malicious failed prosecutions of scientists who worked with institutions in China. U.S. Attorney Andrew E. Lelling has even admitted that the initiative that he helped lead “created a climate of fear among researchers” and now says, “You don’t want people to be scared of collaboration.”

If Chinese scientists are afraid to work in the United States, that means that the United States will not benefit from their discoveries as much or as quickly as China will. Although the Justice Department claims to have shut down its “China Initiative,” my colleagues doubt that Chinese scientists will be free from unjust scrutiny going forward. The U.S. National Institutes of Health is still bragging about having caused the firings of more than 100 scientists and shutting down research by over 150 scientists—over 80 percent of whom identify as Asian.

The administration continues to maintain contrary to evidence that Chinese industrial espionage—by scientists working in the United States—is a significant threat to the country. Universities and U.S. companies think the far greater threat is losing out on talented Chinese researchers. If the United States wants to deal a blow to the Chinese Communist Party, it should start by trying to fix the damage that it has done in the last few years and liberalize immigration from China.

China is no longer cheap, especially since the unfair forex regime beginning in 2013 forced on the yuan by the collective first world. The yuan has doubled or more against most of the third world this century, and that includes India, Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia. The yuan has appreciated 70% vs. the yen in the past decade alone.

That’s the price of being held hostage to “currency manipulator” and the threat of sanctions.

China wisely decided to make use of the external pressure to clean house. The heady cowboy days of the 2000s are never coming back. Laws have been enacted, and enforcement stepped up, particularly environmental protection, labor protection, and IP. Factories are subject to way more stringent regulations than a typical third world country.

So why aren’t corporations fleeing for the exit?

Simple.

They can’t find a better alternative.

Dollar for dollar, the Chinese workforce is one of the best in the world. There is incredible competition from a 800m (or 5 american work forces, the 3rd largest in the world) labor base. No other country has this superpower, not even India, which lags the Chinese workforce by 300+m workers. There is incredible energy driving productivity in China, unmatched elsewhere.

This incredible competition is the reason why the Chinese have to able to turn everything they touch into commodity goods for the masses. Case in point: over 85% of all masks and PPE over the pandemic have been supplied by China. An entire industrial segment suddenly exploded to fulfill previously absent demand and kept prices stable for the rest of the world.

Why didn’t others try to muscle in on the Chinese dominance in masks and ppe, given the prevailing narrative of China weaponizing the supply?

The first world had the tech, but domestic conditions priced them out of the market without subsidies. The third world had the labor, but few managed covid like the Chinese did. They also lacked the tools to ramp up quickly, namely the mask-making machines, software, quality raw materials and know-how to operate them.

What is rarely mentioned is the completeness of China’s manufacturing chain, which makes every category of goods under the UNSD classification. China is rapidly moving up the ladder to become the tool-making enabler of industries. China in the 2020s is capable of 3d printing wide body aircraft parts, and delivering 8-axis cnc machines.

The Chinese supply chain ENABLED the rapid ramp-up of mask-making by supplying the tools for entrepreneurs to take advantage of the opportunity presented by unprecedented demand. There was expertise at hand to use them, and motivated workers willing to learn and adapt.

This is Chinese industry today, extremely nimble, responsive and consistently accomplished in execution.

Case in point. When was the last time an iphone launch was delayed on account of manufacturing hiccups in China? I can’t think of one, not even the past three years, when China implemented one of the strictest zero covid policies anywhere. Every iphone ever made (and Apple orders >200m of them each year) came off a Chinese designed process, and more Chinese engineers work on the iphone’s hardware than the sum total of Apple engineers.

My point?

If alternatives to China exist, the floodgates would have opened long ago. China competes with the third world by offering what they can’t, which is a superb workforce that hits outlandish targets most of the time, enabled by first world infrastructure and yes, price stability from ahem, a strong yuan.

External discipline has certainly helped China’s transition.

Good luck competing with China.

Note: China hasn’t been unfriendly to foreign corporations, save for those engaging directly in the discrimination of the chinese nation. Cue H&M and others. It will be a different world when the chinese begin to make money operating in the first world the way MNCs do in China.

P.S.: Chinese exports to America have not been crippled by the doubling of the yuan vs. third world competition, plus the 20% blanket tariff from the Donald era. That’s a >140% penalty (the magic of compounding) imposed on Chinese goods, a sea change change within a decade. What explains Chinese trade resilience?

Huawei’s Mate X3 Folding Phone Is Going Global

Huawei launched a duo of flagship phones for 2023 in its native China in earlier this year, and now it's bringing them to international markets. The Huawei P60 series launches in the UK from today starting at £1,200, while the Mate X3 will go up for sale on May 26 for £2,000 with preorders starting on Huawei's online store today. There is no US release planned.

Both phones represent impressive feats of engineering as is typical of Huawei smartphones, but neither will have Google apps and services as a result of US sanctions. This also means each of the phones runs on a 4G version of last year's Snapdragon 8 Plus Gen 1 processors....

What you may have missed

May 9th came the Florida Chinese exclusion act.

All or nothing You either ban ALL foreigners or NONE of them. But Florida chose a particular group of foreigners. I wonder why.

Florida signed a series of bills banning Chinese citizens from buying land in Florida. I’ve seen people express support for these bills for one reason or another. People are free to have whatever opinions they want.

But make no mistake, that this law is racist, xenophobic, and discriminatory.

It is right to draw comparisons to these recent bills with the Chinese Exclusion Act

. Both of these laws aim to do the same thing, to restrict and reduce the number of Chinese people in the US.

I’ve seen people make the argument of “foreigners and foreign investment drive up the real estate value.” First of all, do realize this kind of rhetoric is inherently nativist. Read up on the alien land laws

which sought to ban Asian immigrants from owning property because White Americans were afraid of Chinese and Japanese people stealing their resources and land. Secondly, Canada

is the largest foreign investor in Florida’s real estate, followed by numerous Latin American countries. China isn’t even a top investor.

So frankly, people supporting this argument are either misinformed or plain bigots.

Another argument I’ve seen in defense of this bill is that “this bill isn’t racist, it only targets Chinese nationals, not Chinese Americans.

It’s for national security.” Again, extremely xenophobic and historically incorrect. If you believe this argument I would implore you to read and research how the Chinese Exclusion Act affected Chinese Americans and other Asian Americans. “National security” has long been used as as a tool of oppression and as an excuse for anti-Asian racism

.

The China initiative by the DOJ comes as a recent example which sought to find and persecute perceived Chinese espionage in the US. In the almost 4 years of the initiative, not one person would persecuted. It only served to falsely destroy the academic careers of numerous professors and scientists

. In addition to creating systematic, racial used distrust in Chinese Americans. So if anyone believes these bills in Florida this won’t affect Chinese and other Asian Americans, history has shown you to be delusional.

On March 31, 2023, the government of Japan announced that it will supplement the Wassenaar Arrangement and impose export controls on 23 types of semiconductor manufacturing equipment which were not subject to prior restrictions , including all Deep Ultraviolet (DUV) Immersion Lithography systems. The Japanese government called for public comment on the new amendment until April 29 and will devise the final rules accordingly. Such decisions by the Japanese government will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the global semiconductor industry and backfire on Japan’s own domestic industry.

Despite the fact that when Japanese Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry, Yasutoshi Nishimura, spoke to the press, he claimed that the move was not coordinated with US export control measures issued by the US on October, 2022. However, it’s pretty obvious that the amendment is targeted at China and is a compromise by Japan under US coercion. Under the guise of preventing high-end equipment from being used for military purposes, the real intention of the new amendment is clear: Japan will follow the US policy to help it contain and suppress China’s semiconductor industry. In fact, restricting equipment exports to China under the pretense of avoiding its military use is very naive, and its real intention is obvious to all.

The semiconductor industry is one of the world’s most globalized industries. Over the past 40 years, the unification of the mobile communication standards has contributed to common standards for technologies and products of communication mobile devices. This has led to the development of the globalized supply chain, contributing to the prosperity of the global economy.

Integrated circuit chips, which are indispensable to mobile communication devices, have achieved globalization throughout the industry and supply chains. Meanwhile, the model of semiconductor industry has moved from the unified system house to IDM, which has further generated the model of “Fabless plus Foundry.” In the new century, the industry has become increasingly fractionized giving birth to EDA, IP core and design services and other new business models. These new industrial models have significantly liberated productivity and promoted the prosperity of the global semiconductor industry.

For instance, many US semiconductor enterprises have located their production of high-end chip products in China’s Taiwan, or South Korea, and the low-end ones on the Chinese mainland. For example, the chips used in the popular iPhone are designed in the US, produced in China’s Taiwan, packaged in Southeast Asian countries and assembled together with other components from Japan, South Korea, Europe and China’s mainland to form a complete phone, which is then sold worldwide. Without the global division of labor and cooperation, the cost of mobile phones would soar, while manufacturing profits would slump. Japan, China, and the US are all segments of the global semiconductor value chain, and one cannot survive without the other. The reason why the globalization of the semiconductor industry can be so thorough is that every segment in this industrial chain is a beneficiary. Once this global industrial chain is disrupted, every large and small enterprise under the current model will face difficulties. If China, one of the most important segments in the global chain, is in trouble, the global industry will also suffer, and the severity of the consequences is far beyond what we can imagine.

Japan is a semiconductor powerhouse that plays an important role in the global market. Since 1980s, its semiconductor industry has been suppressed by the US and has gradually shrunk in size. In recent years, even famous Japanese company Toshiba had to sell its facilities to Micron. Nevertheless, in the field of semiconductor manufacturing equipment, Japan still accounts for a large share of nearly 40 percent in the global market, contributing to the prosperity of the global semiconductor industry. It is crucial for the Japanese semiconductor industry to maintain its global market share and competitiveness, as it is facing an overall declining trend, and the Japanese political community is undoubtedly well aware of this. China’s semiconductor industry is on the rise, with an annual investment of nearly $30 billion, with over $10 billion spent on purchasing Japanese equipment and materials. This is not an easy number to ignore for anyone. Over the past year, sales by US semiconductor equipment companies in the Chinese market have been constrained by their own government leading to heavy losses. If Japan restricts its export of advanced semiconductor equipment to China, Japanese companies are bound to repeat the mistake. Therefore, the Japanese government must learn from the past seriously and carefully and thoroughly consider the implications of any new export restrictions.

Over the past three decades, participants in China’s semiconductor industry have made their arrangements and developed according to the principles of globalization. The trust in globalization is the reason why China’s semiconductor industry has formed such close and effective relationships with global partners. It has been cooperating with partners from different countries and regions to promote the globalization of the semiconductor industry and maintain the security of its global supply chain. This is why we felt shocked and puzzled when the US decided to suppress the Chinese semiconductor industry. However, China does not respond tit for tat, but rather continues to resolutely maintain an integrated global industry chain. We are only forced to save ourselves in some areas that are choked by the US It is gratifying to see the rapid capacity-building and strong competitiveness of Chinese semiconductor equipment manufacturers, which has exceeded the expectation of most industry insiders. In the development of semiconductor equipment, China enterprises are catching up. Although there is still a big gap, the development potential is clear to all. Just a decade ago, China did not possess the ability to build any domestic semiconductor equipment, and now a considerable portion of equipment is produced domestically. With the support from the government, capital and markets, a prosperous and domestically supported Chinese semiconductor industry developed over time is not beyond China’s reach. It is a great pity that Japanese companies may be forced to withdraw from this promising market under external pressure. The Japanese government should firmly stand by its enterprises and not do anything that will harm others without benefiting itself.

It’s true that Japan may be under tremendous pressure, and the Japanese government has limited bargaining power in front of the US government. However, the Japanese government needs to be more rational, and the Japanese semiconductor industry should make a greater effort. The Japanese government could sit down for a careful discussion with the Chinese government to find proper solutions based on mutual benefit. From a perspective of the well-being of all mankind, this could prevent the situation from developing out of control. After all, maintaining the integrity of the global semiconductor industry chain is the best choice for all parties, and it requires our joint efforts.

Can you predict the future?

Pakistan Keen to Pay for Russian Crude Oil Imports With Chinese Yuan – Bloomberg

As far as my knowledge is concerned, China new strategy in getting rip of the dollar she has by helping developing countries clearing their dollar debt to IMF and US in exchange for some kind of deal with the respective countries. Such moved help reduced china dollar holding risk , and help developing countries reduced US debt interest repayment and free them from US controlled. By the way, I think Russia recently refused to sales any more energy to India in Indian currency, Chinese yuan is a preferred currency.

Pakistan Keen to Pay for Russian Crude Oil Imports With Chinese Yuan - Bloomberg

UK’s MASSIVE WW3 ESCALATION, F-22s SENT TO FRONT, NUCLEAR EVACUATION IN PROGRESS

World Hal Turner 09 May 2023 

Note: India government, especially modi is like its colonial master with a looting DNA. They are unreliable and often abuse government power to loot successful foreign companies in India. China companies experience a lot of such tactics. 

Wistron, Apple's assembly partner for the iPhone SE, is allegedly preparing to wind down most of its operations in India, with the company rumored to withdraw most of itself from the country over the next year. 

High Speed Bullet Train CHINA

Germany Warns China That ‘Neutrality’ Means Siding With Russia | Barron’s

She should go back to school to learn the meaning of “neutral “

Germany Warns China That 'Neutrality' Means Siding With Russia | Barron's

Article HERE

Head of Russia’s Space Agency Drops Bombshell Claim: Did America Fake the Moon Landing?

Wagging the Moon Doggie (for real!)

Part II. The US-China War Began in 1944

China’s multilayered defense is also wide and deep.

Part I of this trilogy dealt with the foundations of China’s defense. This episode emphasizes its sophisticated, multi-layered composition and Corelli Barnett explains where real military power comes from. Part III explains how a hollowed-out US cannot even organize a credible military threat to China.

Hyperspectral detection satellites oversee the Western Pacific battlespace and airborne lasers detect waves and temperature variations generated by moving targets. The West Pacific Surveillance and Targeting satellite, along with fifteen Yaogan-30 satellites in low-earth orbit, operating as triplets positioned in close proximity, geo-locate military platforms by measuring the angular or time difference of arrival of their intercepted electromagnetic signals. Below them, the Caihong-T4, a massive, solar-powered drone, loiters for months at a cloudless altitude of sixty-five thousand feet, while below, the fifteen-ton, one-hundred fifty-foot wingspan Divine Eagle High Altitude Stealth-Hunting Drone reads electronic signals from aircraft long before they approach their targets.

Below the drones AWACS, whose solid-state detectors have twice the range of the US AWACS rotating domes, relay targeting information to Russian-built S-400 anti-aircraft/anti-missile batteries. Jin Canrong, the PRC’s senior defense policy advisor, says China has deployed weapons that can destroy in minutes every military base in its region, see all stealth bombers and submarines, and take out every aircraft carrier within two thousand miles of shore.

The DF-41 ICBM is a three-stage, solid-fuel device with a twelve-thousand mile range and a top speed of twenty-thousand mph. Road-mobile, it launches on four minutes warning and is faster, longer ranged than any Western weapon and delivers ten independently targetable nuclear warheads.

The DF-ZF Hypersonic Glide Vehicle, whose significance Russian Defense Minister Rogozin compared to the atom bomb, began its deployment cycle in 2023. Launched sixty miles above the earth from a missile traveling at sixteen-thousand mph, the DF-ZF rides its own supersonic shockwave to the target. Says RAND, “With the ability to fly at unpredictable trajectories, these missiles will hold extremely large areas at risk throughout much of their flight”. A Congressional report concludes, “The very high speeds of these weapons combined with their maneuverability and ability to travel at lower, radar-evading altitudes would make them far less vulnerable to current defenses than existing missiles”.

In real wars, boots on the ground determine final outcomes and the PLA is as unconventional as its weapons. Combat forces elect their NCOs and all two-million soldiers receive more political education than the rest of the world’s troops combined, as historian William Hinton explains, “From its inception the Army has been led by the Party and has never played a purely military role. On the contrary, Army cadres have always played a leading political role”. Mao explained, “The Red Army fights not merely for the sake of fighting but in order to conduct propaganda, xuānchuán, among the people, organize, arm and help them establish revolutionary political power. Without these objectives, fighting loses its meaning and the Red Army loses its reason for existence”. Xiaoming Zhang adds, “Under the influence of Confucian philosophy, the concept of the just or righteous war was prevalent throughout Chinese society so, unlike Western militaries which depend on professional ethics and training to ensure that soldiers perform their duties in war, the PLA opted for political indoctrination and attempted to make troops understand why a war must be fought and how it would matter to them”.

By coordinating its military, legal, diplomatic, and economic assets simultaneously, China exemplifies Correlli Barnett’s dictum:

The power of a nation-state by no means consists only in its armed forces, but also in its economic and technological resources; in the dexterity, foresight and resolution with which its foreign policy is conducted; in the efficiency of its social and political organization. It consists most of all in the nation itself: the people; their skills, energy, ambition, discipline, initiative; their beliefs, myths and illusions. And it consists, further, in the way all these factors are related to one another. Moreover, national power has to be considered not only in itself, in its absolute extent, but relative to the state’s foreign or imperial obligations; it has to be considered relative to the power of other states.

If it has not already done so, China’s military budget will reach nominal currency parity with America’s in 2028. Oon that day, seventy years of Chinese anxiety and American hegemony will come to a peaceful end. We hope.

Cat With Broken Paw Visited The Clinic. What The Nurse Did Next Took People By Surprise!

.

.

A large scale incident is taking place at the US / MEXICO Border as of 4:35 PM Eastern US time today (Wednesday) – VERY HEAVY GUNFIRE is being exchanged at the Pharr-Reynosa International Bridge. VIDEO BELOW . . .

More video from the border showing running machine gun fighting!  Below, a trucker waiting in traffic on the Pharr-Reynosa bridge captures imagery of two vehicles BELOW the bridge from which gunfire is emanating.  Two vehicles can be seen, one in Mexican Army camouflage green!  It is not clear which vehicle is firing, or at what they are firing, but the sounds of gunfire are crystal clear . . .

Bold gambits on the West Asian chessboard

In the Great Power competition, everything is connected: Uncertain negotiations between Russia and NATO over Ukraine may be impacted by Turkiye’s post-election pivot and Syria's return to the Arab League.

By Pepe Escobar

May 10, 2023: Information Clearing House — “The Cradle” — 

West Asia is a region that is currently experiencing a great deal of geopolitical activity. Recent diplomatic efforts, initiated by Russia and overseen by China, secured a long-elusive Iranian and Saudi Arabian rapprochement, while Syria’s return to the Arab League has been welcomed with great fanfare.

The diplomatic flurry signals a shift away from the Imperial “Divide and Rule” tactics that have been used for decades to create national, tribal, and sectarian rifts throughout this strategic region.

The proxy war in Syria, backed by the Empire and its terror outfits – including the occupation of resource-rich territories and mass theft of Syrian oil – continues to rage on despite Damascus having gained the upper hand.

That advantage, weakened in recent years by a barrage of western economic killer sanctions, is now growing exponentially: the Syrian state was further bolstered by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s recent official visit – pledging to expand bilateral ties – on the eve of Syria’s return to the Arab League.

“Assad must go” – a meme straight out of collective western hubris – in the end, did not go.

Imperial threats notwithstanding, those Arab states that had sought to isolate the Syrian president came back to praise him all over again, led by Moscow and Tehran.

Syria is extensively discussed in informed circles in Moscow.

There’s a sort of consensus that Russia, now concentrated in the “all or nothing” proxy war against NATO, will not currently be able to impose a Syrian peace solution, but that doesn’t preclude the Saudis, Iranians, and Turks fronting a Russian-led deal.

Had it not been for the aggressive behavior of Straussian neo-cons in the Washington Beltway, a comprehensive multi-territorial peace could have been achieved, including everything from Syria’s sovereignty, to a demilitarized zone in the Russian western borderlands, stability in the Caucasus, and a degree of respect for international law.

However, such a deal is unlikely to materialize, and instead, the situation in West Asia is likely to worsen. This is due in part to the fact that the North Atlantic has already shifted its focus to the South China Sea.

An impossible ‘peace’

The collective west appears to lack a decisive leader, with the Hegemon currently being “led” by a senile president who is remote-controlled by a pack of polished-faced warmongers. The situation has devolved to the point where the much-hyped “Ukrainian counter-offensive” may actually be the prelude to a NATO humiliation that will make Afghanistan look like Disneyland in the Hindu Kush.

Arguably there may be some similarities between Russia-NATO now and Turkiye-Russia before March 2020: both sides are betting on some crucial military breakthrough on the battlefield before sitting at the negotiating table. The US is desperate for it: even the 20th century ‘Oracle’ Henry Kissinger is now saying that with China involved, there will be negotiations before the end of 2023.

Despite the urgency of the situation, Moscow does not appear to be in a hurry. Its key military strategy, as seen in Bakhmut and Artemyovsk, is to use a combination of the snail technique and the mincing machine. The ultimate goal is to demilitarize NATO as a whole rather than just Ukraine, and so far, it appears to be working brilliantly.

Russia is in it for the long haul, anticipating that one day the collective west will have an “Eureka!” moment and realize it is time to abandon the race.

Now let’s assume, by some divine intervention, that negotiations would start in a few months, with China involved. Moscow – and Beijing – both know they simply cannot trust anything the Hegemon says or signs.

Moreover, the crucial US tactical victory has already been conclusive: Russia sanctioned, demonized and separated from Europe, and the EU cemented as a de-industrialized, inconsequential lowly vassal.

Presupposing there is a negotiated peace, it will arguably resemble a Syria 2.0, with a massive “Idlib” equivalent right on Russia’s door, which is something entirely unacceptable to Moscow.

In practice, we will have Banderista terror outfits – the Slav version of ISIS – free to roam across the Russian Federation in car bombing and kamikaze drone sprees. The Hegemon will be able to switch the proxy war on and off at will, just as it continues to do in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan with its terror cells.

The Security Council in Moscow knows very well, based on the Minsk farce acknowledged even by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, that this will be Minsk on steroids: the Kiev regime, or rather the post-Zelensky regime will continue to be weaponized to death with brand new NATO gimmicks.

But then the other option – where there is nothing to negotiate – is equally ominous: a Forever War.

Indivisibility of Security

The real deal to be negotiated is not “pawn in their game” Ukraine: it’s the indivisibility of security. Exactly what Moscow was sensibly trying to convince Washington via those letters sent in December 2021.

In practice, what Moscow is currently doing is realpolitik: pounding NATO on the battlefield until they are weakened enough to accept a Strategic Military Objective (SMO). The SMO would necessarily include a demilitarized zone between NATO and Russia, a neutral Ukraine, and no nuclear weapons stationed in Poland, the Baltics, or Finland.

However, given that the Hegemon is a declining superpower and “non-agreement capable,” it is uncertain whether any of this would hold, especially considering the Hegemon’s obsession with infinite NATO expansion. “Non-agreement capable” (недоговороспособны), incidentally, is a term Russian diplomats coined to describe their American counterparts’ inability to stick to any deal they sign – from Minsk to the Iran nuclear agreement.

This incandescent mix gets even more complex with the introduction of the Turkish vector.

Turkish Foreign Minister Cavusoglu has already made it plain that if President Recep Tayyip Erdogan retains power in the 14 May presidential elections, Ankara will neither impose sanctions on Russia nor violate the Montreux Convention, which forbids the passage of warships to and from the Black Sea in wartime.

Risks of Ankara’s geopolitical shift

Erdogan’s chief security and foreign policy adviser, Ibrahim Kalyn, has aptly pointed out that there is no war between Russia and Ukraine; rather, it’s a war between Russia and the west with Ukraine serving as the proxy.

This is why the collective west is heavily invested in an “Erdogan must go” campaign, which is lavishly funded to propel an oddly-matched coalition into the presidential seat. In case the Turkish opposition wins – and their payment to the Hegemon begins – sanctions and violations of Montreux may be on the cards again.

Yet Washington may be in for a surprise. Turkish opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu has implied there will be a more or less continued balanced posturing of Ankara’s foreign policy tilt, while some observers believe that even if Erdogan is ousted, there will be limits to Turkiye’s pivot back to the west.

Erdogan, profiting from the state apparatus and his immense network of patronage, is going no-holds-barred to secure re-election. Only then might he shift from hedging his bets continuously toward making a move to become a real player in Eurasian integration.

Ankara under Erdogan, as it stands, is not pro-Russian; essentially, it tries to profit from both sides. The Turks sell Bayraktar drones to Kiev, have clinched military deals, and at the same time, under the “Turkic States” mantle, invest in separatist tendencies in Crimea and in Kherson.

At the same time, Erdogan badly needs Russian military and energy cooperation. There are no illusions in Moscow about “the Sultan,” or about where Turkiye is leading. If Ankara’s geopolitical turn is hostile, it’s the Turks that will end up losing prime seats in the Eurasian high-speed train – from BRICS+ to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and all spaces in between.

Old West Meat Balls

Ingredients

• 1 1/2 pounds ground beef
• 3/4 cup quick-cooking oats
• 1 1/2 teaspoons salt
• 1/8 teaspoon pepper
• 1/3 cup finely chopped onion
• 3/4 cup canned milk
• 3 tablespoons all-purpose flour
• 1 1/2 teaspoons paprika
• 3/4 teaspoon salt
• 3 tablespoons hot shortening
• 1/3 cup bottled barbecue sauce
• 1 3/4 cups water
• 3 1/2 cups whole kernel corn

Instructions

1. Mix together the ground beef, oats, salt, pepper and canned milk. With wet fingers, shape into 12 balls.
2. Roll in a mixture of flour, paprika and salt.
3. Brown on all sides in the shortening.
4. Add onion, and cook slowly for 5 minutes.
5. Mix together barbecue sauce and water. Stir into skillet. Cover; simmer for 45 minutes, turning meat balls occasionally.
6. Add the corn, and heat thoroughly.
7. Serve hot.

INTERVIEW: The days when China took orders are long gone

Chinese scholars studied wartime military justice system in 2022

Highly technical stuff that may not be your cup of tea today.

the change was also “closely relevant” to ordinary citizens who are not servicemen or women – especially when a criminal case involves both military personnel and civilians.

In his article, Tong also noted that although the decision affects the military’s handling of criminal cases during wartime, its wording left “room for broad interpretation” of the term.

Tong said the term “wartime” was linked to a wider concept, and under China’s Criminal Law could also be defined as a time when the armed forces were “conducting combative operations”, under attack, enforcing martial law, or “responding to violent emergencies”.

He said that under the current regulations, the military could investigate and take legal action against civilians if they were involved in criminal cases that also involved military personnel.

In February, the top deliberative body of the National People’s Congress adopted the Decision on Adjusting the Application of Certain Provisions of the [Chinese] Criminal Procedure Law to the Military During Wartime, which, according to the state-run People’s Daily, gives the Central Military Commission the power to adjust legal provisions, including “jurisdiction, defense and representation, compulsory measures, case filings, investigation, prosecution, trial, and the implementation of sentences.” Although it is impossible to predict how the decision will be used, it could become a weapon to target individuals who oppose a takeover of Taiwan. The PLA might also use it to claim legal jurisdiction over a potentially occupied territory, such as Taiwan. Or Beijing could use it to compel Chinese citizens to support its decisions during wartime.

Upon research, we found that the China Forum of Military Law 2022 by the PLA National Defence University may offer some clues, where unidentified but apparent PLA scholars appealed for rule changes that were later adopted by China's legislature. The discussions - reasons behind those changes - are highly technical and we will publish something else.

Is China Preparing for War?

In their recent article, “Xi Jinping Says He Is Preparing China for War,” published in Foreign Affairs, Mr. John Pomfret and Mr. Matthew Pottinger explored their perceived latest escalation from Beijing regarding Taiwan. While the authors delve into important matters, the article, regrettably, contains a few issues that warrant further scrutiny.

Firstly, the article presents previously known facts and statements as new, which inadvertently fuels an exaggerated sense of panic over the Taiwan situation. This is particularly noteworthy because the article is centered on, in its own words, “something has changed in Beijing” very recently. To ensure a balanced discourse, it is essential to distinguish between past developments and recent events, lest they become conflated.

Additionally, the article occasionally presents claims that, while framed as factual, lack a solid foundation. To maintain credibility and foster constructive dialogue, it is crucial that all assertions be grounded in evidence and supported by reliable sources.

Lastly, some aspects of the article exhibit a one-sided interpretation, potentially overshadowing more nuanced explanations.

As long-time observers of Chinese policies in the field, we intend to provide well-rounded perspectives that encompass the complexities of the matter at hand. By doing so, we wish to contribute to a more informed and measured discussion on the evolving dynamics in the region.

1)

The first sign that this year’s meetings of the National People’s Congress and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference—known as the “two-sessions” because both bodies meet simultaneously—might not be business as usual came on March 1, when the top theoretical journal of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) published an essay titled “Under the Guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Strengthening the Army, We Will Advance Victoriously.”

The top theoretical journal of the Communist Party of China (CPC), by definition, builds the CPC’s theories, the most important of which lately has been Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. According to the CPC, Xi Jinping Thought comprises various parts, including the part on military issues – Xi Jinping Thought on Strengthening the Army, the focus of the essay in question.

The journal’s publication of the essay is, therefore, its routine business, just as it published many other articles on Xi Jinping Thought, such as the worldview and methodology of Xi Jinping Thought in February 2023, Xi Jinping Thought on Ecological Civilization in January 2023, and Xi Jinping Thought on Law-based Rule in December 2022.

The essay in question is also not the journal’s first coverage of the military part of Xi Jinping Thought. In August 2022, the journal published another article by the same author, calling Xi Jinping on Strengthening the Army “an important part of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.”

2)

The essay appeared under the name “Jun Zheng” — a homonym for “military government” that possibly refers to China’s top military body, the Central Military Commission—and argued that “the modernization of national defense and the military must be accelerated.”

“Jun Zheng” is most likely not a homonym for “military government” but the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission. Chinese leaders have for generations publicly argued that the modernization of national defense and the military must be accelerated, which is hardly surprising.

Interpreting Jun Zheng for “military government” implies the term stands for Jun Zhengfu. The negativity correlated with it in the Chinese context, however, makes it almost impossible to be chosen as a conveyer of the CPC’s positions.

For the CPC, “military government” is reminiscent of the 1910s and 1920s when the Republic of China was split and ruled by military despots such as Yuan Shikai – and after Yuan’s death, Feng Guozhang, Zhang Zuolin, and Duan Qirui. It was when “feudalism and imperialism still oppress the Chinese people,” said Mao Zedong, and China was “plunged again into unending darkness,” according to a sister magazine of the top theoretical journal. The end of the military government is still regarded as one of the great feats of the CPC in its canonical history.

The misguided interpretation violates the top CPC principle that “the Party commands the gun.” The CPC has always maintained that it must hold absolute leadership over the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Anything near a “military government” – the gun commands the government – is unimaginable in China.

A more likely explanation is that Jun Zheng stands for Jun Wei Zheng Zhi Gong Zuo Bu, or the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission, which, after the 2015 PLA reform, took over the personnel and publicity duties from the former PLA General Political Department.

PLA media outlets, such as PLA Daily, have been using similar homonyms such as “Jun Zhengping” (likely “review by the Political Work Department”) and “Jun Ping” (likely an abbreviation or a homonym for “military review”). These media outlets are under the auspices of the Political Work Department.

For generations, Chinese leaders have publicly said the modernization of national defense and the military must be accelerated. That a recent journal article also mentioned is not extraordinary.

Jiang Zemin elaborated a three-step plan to achieve “the modernization of national defense and the military” in 1997 and said in 2002 realizing it “without delay” was of “strategic importance.”

Hu Jintao proposed at the 17th Party Congress in 2007 to “open new ground for the modernization of national defense and the military” and at the 18th Party Congress in 2012 to “accelerate the modernization of national defense and the military.”

Xi Jinping called for “fully advancing the modernization of national defense and the military” at the 19th Party Congress in 2017. Beijing, in 2021, listed it as one of the goals in its 14th Five-Year Plan.

3)

And riffing off a speech that Xi made to Chinese military leaders in October 2022, it made lightly veiled jabs at the United States:

In the face of wars that may be imposed on us, we must speak to enemies in a language they understand and use victory to win peace and respect. In the new era, the People’s Army insists on using force to stop fighting … Our army is famous for being good at fighting and having a strong fighting spirit. With millet and rifles, it defeated the Kuomintang army equipped with American equipment. It defeated the world’s number one enemy armed to the teeth on the Korean battlefield, and performed mighty and majestic battle dramas that shocked the world and caused ghosts and gods to weep.

Again, the quote is not original – and not surprising to close watchers of Chinese official statements. For example, Xi said at a 2020 meeting: “It is necessary to speak to invaders in the language they know: that is, a war must be fought to deter invasion, and violence must be met by violence; victory is needed to win peace and respect.”

Additionally, “shocked the world and caused ghosts and gods to weep” may sound dramatic in English, but it’s a literal translation of a poetic tribute to a dead woman in the Qing Dynasty.

4)

Even before the essay’s publication, there were indications that Chinese leaders could be planning for a possible conflict. In December, Beijing promulgated a new law that would enable the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to more easily activate its reserve forces and institutionalize a system for replenishing combat troops in the event of war. Such measures, as the analysts Lyle Goldstein and Nathan Waechter have noted, suggest that Xi may have drawn lessons about military mobilization from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s failures in Ukraine.

The “new law” refers to the Reservists Law of the People’s Republic of China, whose contemplation and drafting date far earlier than the war in Ukraine.

The drafting started in January 2019 and was a part of the “reform of military policy framework,” according to a statement from the Ministry of National Defense and an explanation to the Chinese national legislature.

In November 2018, Xi Jinping attended a meeting of the Central Military Commission on reform of the military policy framework, saying that China should reform in a coordinated way its policy systems covering various issues, including national defense mobilization, and China should “adopt military laws and regulations in an integrated way and enhance their codification.”

According to a press conference of the Ministry of National Defense in November 2018, it took more than a year to complete the research for the reform program. That means the initiation began presumably in 2017.

Many countries have laws on reservists in their books. In the U.S., the reserve components are detailed in Subtitle E of Title 10 of the United States Code. The United Kingdom has its Reserve Forces Act 1996.

5)

The Chinese leader…reiterated that he sees uniting Taiwan and the mainland as vital to the success of his signature policy to achieve “the great rejuvenation of the Chinese ethnos.”

In his fourth speech (and his first as a third-term president), on March 13, Xi announced that the “essence” of his great rejuvenation campaign was “the unification of the motherland.” Although he has hinted at the connection between absorbing Taiwan and his much-vaunted campaign to, essentially, make China great again, he has rarely if ever done so with such clarity.

His messaging about war preparation and his equating of national rejuvenation with unification mark a new phase in his political warfare campaign to intimidate Taiwan.

The “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” originated not with Xi Jinping at all, and Beijing has always been saying the reunification of Taiwan is a necessary part of it.

Indeed, Xi has been stressing “national rejuvenation,” but top Chinese leaders have long emphasized it. In 2001, Jiang Zemin called for, at a meeting celebrating the 80th anniversary of the founding of the CPC, young people to “accomplish the grand cause of socialist modernization and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” In 2002, Jiang Zemin’s report to the 16th National Congress of the CPC mentioned the term nine times.

Top Chinese leaders have also repeatedly declared that reunification is within the framework of “rejuvenation.” Jiang Zemin said in his report at the 15th Party Congress in 1997 “the complete reunification of the motherland and the comprehensive revitalization of the nation will certainly be achieved” (In Party speak, revitalization is the predecessor to rejuvenation). Jiang said in his report at the 16th Party Congress in 2002, “If the country is to be reunited and the nation is to be rejuvenated, the Taiwan question cannot be delayed indefinitely.”

Hu Jintao said in his report at the 17th Party Congress in 2007 “cross-strait reunification is a historical necessity for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” and in his report at the 18th Party Congress in 2012 “with all Chinese people working together, we will be able to accomplish the great task of reunification of the motherland in the process of achieving the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”

6)

His government also announced…plans to make the country less dependent on foreign grain imports.

Xi also said that he wants China to end its reliance on imports of grain and manufactured goods. “In case we’re short of either, the international market will not protect us,” Xi declared. Li, the outgoing premier, emphasized the same point in his annual government “work report” on the same day, saying Beijing must “unremittingly keep the rice bowls of more than 1.4 billion Chinese people firmly in their own hands.” China currently depends on imports for more than a third of its net food consumption.

For decades, the Chinese leadership has stressed “self-reliance” in food. In 1983, the CPC Central Committee said in “Several Issues of the Current Rural Economic Policy” that “from the overall perspective, the solution to the grain problem must be based on self-reliance.”

In 1989, Jiang Zemin said when celebrating the 40th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China “the steady growth of agriculture, especially food production, is the basis for the development of the entire national economy. The problem of feeding 1.1 billion people can only be solved by our own correct approach and sustained efforts, and we can not rely on any other people to solve it on our behalf. At no time can we forget this most basic national condition.”

In October 1993, Jiang Zemin said in his speech “Attaching Great Importance to Issues Related to Agriculture, Rural areas and Rural People” that “if agriculture and food production go wrong, no country will be able to help us. If we live on imported food, we are bound to be constrained by others.”

In 2008, the National Development and Reform Commission said in the Outline of the Medium-and Long-term Plan for National Food Security (2008-2020) that a guiding principle is “坚持立足于基本靠国内保障粮食供给” “insisting on basically relying on domestic (supply) to secure food supply”

In 2013, Xi Jinping said at the Central Conference on Rural Work that “having control over our own food supply is a basic policy that must be adhered to in the long run” and since repeatedly highlighted food security, including listing it as a part of national security in July 2015. Li Keqiang, then Premier, mentioned it in last year’s report on the work of the government as well.

Heeding the market rather than Beijing’s vows, China’s dependency on imported grains, however, climbed in the past decade, although most of the imports are feedstuffs and oilseeds.

7)

In his first speech on March 6, Xi appeared to be girding China’s industrial base for struggle and conflict …

On March 5, Xi gave a second speech laying out a vision of Chinese self-sufficiency that went considerably further than any of his previous discussions of the topic, saying China’s march to modernization is contingent on breaking technological dependence on foreign economies — meaning the United States and other industrialized democracies.

Xi couldn’t have made his first speech on March 6 and then a second on March 5.

Additionally, Xi’s May 5 speech did stress Chinese self-sufficiency, but it didn’t, in our opinion, go “considerably further than any of his previous discussions of the topic.” We looked at each sentence of that speech on self-sufficiency and found them highly similar to statements he had made before. Given that our response is already too lengthy, we choose not to facilitate a sentence-by-sentence reference here but would do so if challenged.

8)

At the same time, cities in Fujian Province, across the strait from Taiwan, have begun building or upgrading air-raid shelters and at least one “wartime emergency hospital,” according to Chinese state media.

Upon research, the “wartime emergency hospital” probably refers to one in Fuzhou, the capital of Fujian Province. The official press release, titled “Fuzhou has built another war-time medical rescue project,” says, “Yang Lihong, the Secretary of the Party Committee and Director of the Fuzhou Civil Defense Office, has proposed accelerating the construction of wartime medical rescue stations and extending them to subway stations and other locations in response to the current scarcity of medical rescue resources. He attaches great importance to the construction of such projects.“

It’s therefore clear that the “wartime emergency hospital” in question is the initiative of one local official whose jurisdiction covers only Fuzhou.

The press release added, “the wartime emergency project, in Cangshan District, Fuzhou City, combined with Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital of Fujian Medical University, has been built.” Based on that, experienced observers of Chinese government press releases are likely to suspect the so-called “wartime emergency project” could be just a superficial addition to the existing hospital.

In evidence confirming the suspicion, the press release includes three photos. One shows the location – outside the Mengchao Hepatobiliary Hospital, and two show power generators and their control boxes. That’s probably why it was named a “wartime emergency project” instead of a hospital. The conclusion is, therefore, that the local government office added backup power outside an existing hospital and declared they added a “wartime emergency project.”

Upon research, we couldn’t find evidence for notable “building or upgrading air-raid shelters” in Fujian Province. It’s worth mentioning that turning underground air-raid shelters into shopping malls is commonplace across China. In the northernmost Heilongjiang Province, commercialization has become so entrenched that enormous corruption has been discovered and highlighted by the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection, the CPC’s discipline watchdog, in 2021.

9)

If these developments hint at a shift in Beijing’s thinking, the two-sessions meetings in early March all but confirmed one. Among the proposals discussed by the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference —the advisory body — was a plan to create a blacklist of pro-independence activists and political leaders in Taiwan. Tabled by the popular ultranationalist blogger Zhou Xiaoping, the plan would authorize the assassination of blacklisted individuals — including Taiwan’s vice president, William Lai Ching-te — if they do not reform their ways. Zhou later told the Hong Kong newspaper Ming Pao that his proposal had been accepted by the conference and “relayed to relevant authorities for evaluation and consideration.” Proposals like Zhou’s do not come by accident. In 2014, Xi praised Zhou for the “positive energy” of his jeremiads against Taiwan and the United States.

First, a total of 4,689 proposals were submitted to the First Session of the 14th National Committee of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). Zhou’s is just one of them.

Second, both the CPPCC and Chinese media shunned Zhou’s plan. Zhou, a controversial first-time National Committee member, was featured in an interview on the CPPCC website under the section of Tianjin, where he serves as a member of CPPCC National Committee. The interview highlighted Zhou’s other proposal while excluding the one concerning Taiwan. Mainstream media in the Chinese mainland did not cover or even mention it during the “two sessions.” That suggests a lack of endorsement.

Thirdly, the CPPCC Daily, an official publication managed by the general office of the CPPCC National Committee, reported that the office has identified a number of “priority proposals” from the submitted proposals during the 14th session, such as promoting the Chinese path to modernization, implementing new development concepts, and ensuring and improving people’s livelihoods. Taiwan-related proposals weren’t mentioned.

Fourthly, Ming Pao published the interview with Zhou on March 6, 2023, when the CPPCC National Committee had just opened its annual session and had not yet begun considering proposals submitted by its members. Zhou’s statement to the Hong Kong newspaper claiming that the proposal had been accepted and “relayed to relevant authorities for evaluation and consideration” is more likely a self-promotion.

Lastly, a Xinhua report also published in the People’s Daily in 2014 described the interaction between Xi Jinping and Zhou in the only public account available

总书记在讲到互联网文学时，停下来问：“听说今天来了两位网络作家，是哪两位啊？”

座谈会结束时，习近平还走到他们面前，亲切地说：“希望你们创作更多具有正能量的作品。”

Discussing internet literature, the General Secretary paused and asked: “I heard that there are two internet writers here today, which two are they?” At the symposium’s conclusion, Xi Jinping approached them and said amicably “I hope you will create more works with positive energy.”

In the Chinese mainland, “literature” typically refers to novels, prose, and poetry rather than commentaries on current affairs. What Xi meant by “positive energy” was also unclear. It’s fair to say Xi praised Zhou for the “positive energy,” but there is no basis for “of his jeremiads against Taiwan and the United States” from publicly available information.

10)

Also at the two-sessions meetings, outgoing Premier Li Keqiang announced a military budget of 1.55 trillion yuan (roughly $224.8 billion) for 2023, a 7.2 percent increase from last year. Li, too, called for heightened “preparations for war.”

Even the official Chinese figure exceeds the military spending of all the Pacific treaty allies of the United States combined (Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand), and it is a safe bet China is spending substantially more than it says.

The “7.2 percent increase” is the nominal military expenditure growth, which does not take into account changes in prices. Li Keqiang said in the 2023 Government Work Report that “the main projected targets for development this year are as follows: GDP growth of around 5 percent … CPI increase of around 3 percent,” meaning that China’s expected nominal economic growth without considering price changes in 2023 is about 8 percent. In other words, nominal military expenditure growth (7.2%) is lower than nominal economic growth (8%) – China is set to devote a smaller share of its economy to defense in 2023.

It’s common sense that the Chinese military is not under the purview of the State Council, as the CPC has been steadfast in asserting absolute leadership over the PLA. Apart from the courtesy nature of the government work report’s coverage of the military, the exact language adopted standard, uncharacteristic expressions.

Comparing defense budgets in different ways could create different impressions. For example, the combined land, population, and GDP of Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand are far lower than China, so their combined military spending is lower than China may not be surprising.

On a per capita basis, China’s military spending is far lower than not only the U.S. but also its Pacific treaty allies such as Australia, South Korea, and Japan.

The Foreign Affairs article also apparently dodged a much more common comparison — the U.S. spends more on national defense than China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, and South Korea — combined.

11)

But the most telling moments of the two-sessions meetings, perhaps unsurprisingly, involved Xi himself. The Chinese leader gave four speeches in all—one to delegates of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, two to the National People’s Congress, and one to military and paramilitary leaders. In them, he described a bleak geopolitical landscape, singled out the United States as China’s adversary, exhorted private businesses to serve China’s military and strategic aims.

What Xi said was that the private sector is “an important force for our Party’s long-term governance and for the Party to lead the Chinese people to deliver on the two centenary goals and realize the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”

Business entities are a key factor in a nation’s overall strength. Xi also said the private businesses should adhere to “high-quality development” and contribute to shared prosperity of the Chinese people. These words, in our opinion, can hardly be qualified as he “exhorted private businesses to serve China’s military and strategic aims.”

Furthermore, they are hardly “most telling” given similar phrasing has been used numerous times before, including in the exact same words in November 2018 – the private sector is “an important force to lead the Chinese people to deliver on the two centenary goals and realize the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”

The characterization also completely mispresented the context of the quote. It’s not a secret that the confidence of China’s private businesses dived in recent years, and the intended purpose of Xi’s words was to assure private entrepreneurs by describing them as being in the same camp as the CPC and Chinese development. It follows, as his apparent logic was, that private businesspeople do not have to worry about becoming a target.

Several parts in the article would take a lot more space for us to examine, but we are afraid that we have long ago run out of even the most generous reader’s patience. So allow us to offer some preliminary thoughts here.

Since December, the Chinese government has also opened a slew of National Defense Mobilization offices—or recruitment centers—across the country, including in Beijing, Fujian, Hubei, Hunan, Inner Mongolia, Shandong, Shanghai, Sichuan, Tibet, and Wuhan.

They are the result of a decade-long reform of China’s national defense mobilization system, dating back to the famed Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Some Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Deepening the Reform in 2013 which said for “We will deepen the reform of national defense education, improve the national defense mobilization system, and the system of conscription during peace time and mobilization during wartime.” In 2017, Xi said in his speech at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China again “we will improve our national defense mobilization system.”

The timeline shows not a recent development as the Foreign Affairs article attempts to convey, and Chinese researchers have published on why the country needs to overhaul its national defense mobilization: the old system was cumbersome, detached from reality, and ineffective. For example, China’s past “defense mobilization committees” used to be powerless coordinative bodies that could only relay information and did not even have dedicated staff.

The law governing military reservists is not the only legal change that hints at Beijing’s preparations. In February, the top deliberative body of the National People’s Congress adopted the Decision on Adjusting the Application of Certain Provisions of the [Chinese] Criminal Procedure Law to the Military During Wartime, which, according to the state-run People’s Daily, gives the Central Military Commission the power to adjust legal provisions, including “jurisdiction, defense and representation, compulsory measures, case filings, investigation, prosecution, trial, and the implementation of sentences.” Although it is impossible to predict how the decision will be used, it could become a weapon to target individuals who oppose a takeover of Taiwan. The PLA might also use it to claim legal jurisdiction over a potentially occupied territory, such as Taiwan. Or Beijing could use it to compel Chinese citizens to support its decisions during wartime.

Regrettably, Beijing offered few communications on this, giving rise to such speculations. Upon research, we found that the China Forum of Military Law 2022 by the PLA National Defence University may offer some clues, where unidentified but apparent PLA scholars appealed for rule changes that were later adopted by China’s legislature. The discussions – reasons behind those changes – are highly technical and we will publish something else.

It also called for an intensification of Military-Civil Fusion, Xi’s policy requiring private companies and civilian institutions to serve China’s military modernization effort.

A lot of Western ink has been spilled on Military-Civil Fusion (MCF), and many have made up their minds about it. But as we see it, the MCF is not about “requiring” private companies and civilian institutions to serve China’s military modernization effort but “enabling” them to do so if they so choose.

“China has imposed a legal obligation on Chinese companies to participate in MCF” is one of the myths broken by Elsa B. Kania and Lorand Laskai in a Center for New American Security research, which found “Apart from the CCP constitution, no statute or law mandating compulsory participation in MCF appears to exist.”

For the CPC constitution, they found “When the 19th CCP National Congress approved an update to the party constitution in October 2017, this revision enshrined Xi’s top priorities, including the Belt and Road Initiative. The provision that mentions MCF, far from mandating society-wide participation in MCF or offering any affirmative command, is simply included among a listing of various strategies for party cadres to implement” and “the provision thus merely reaffirms what is already apparent on many fronts: namely, that the party considers MCF a strategic priority.”

The background of MCF, in our opinion, is that the institutional foundations of PLA’s weapon development and research are copied from the Soviet Union, where systematic barriers allow state-owned companies and, in particular, military-owned industrial complex, enjoyed a monopoly in defense contracts and shut out private businesses. In 2010, Chinese scholars estimated that less than 1 percent of the country’s civilian high-tech enterprises were involved in defense-related activity, according to a Council on Foreign Relations blog post.

Also, the MCF seeks to incentivize military equipment producers to tap the civilian market because otherwise, there weren’t enough financial resources to sustain them.

Chinese leaders before Xi used the exact same word Jun Min Rong He, or MCF, as has been widely translated, and the concept dates back to Mao Zedong and the founding of the People’s Republic of China.

Whereas U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has emphasized “guardrails” and other means of slowing the deterioration of U.S.-China relations, Beijing is clearly preparing for a new, more confrontational era.

While paying lip service to “guardrails,” President BIden’s administration put many Chinese companies under sanctions, expanded export control of chip technology, facilitated the proliferation of nuclear technology for military use in the Pacific, added military bases in the Philippines, and even stalled in bringing back the China Fulbright program – to name just a few. It’s flimsy to say President Biden’s administration slowed the deterioration of U.S.-China relations.

Last but not least, and this could not be stressed enough for China watching – each language has unique features rooted in its speakers’ national history and tradition, and Chinese is no different. Astute observers may have noticed that many words that the CPC and Chinese government routinely use can be traced back to military terms in revolutionary times but no longer invoke a violent nature in a meaningful sense. (Enditem)

Rescued Cat Won’t Stop Crying, Then His Owner Realizes He Was Trying To Say Something Very Sad

Cardboard Cat Forts: The Ultimate DIY Project for Feline Fun

Picture this: You’re sitting at home, surrounded by Amazon boxes that you’ve been too lazy to recycle. You’ve got some time on your hands, a cat on your lap, and you’re feeling a little bit creative. What do you do? You build a cardboard cat fort, of course!

h/t: sadanduseless

But why do cats love cardboard so much? It’s not just because they’re weirdos (although that certainly plays a part). No, it turns out that there are some legit reasons why felines can’t resist the allure of a good cardboard box.

First of all, cats are all about safety and security. They love small, enclosed spaces where they can hide and feel safe from predators (or from their pesky human roommates). Cardboard boxes provide that sense of protection that cats crave.

But it’s not just about safety. Cardboard is also a great insulator, which means that it keeps cats warm and cozy. And let’s be real, who doesn’t love a good snuggle session in a warm, cozy box?

Of course, there’s also the playfulness and curiosity factor. Cats are curious creatures by nature, and a cardboard box provides endless opportunities for exploration and play. They can jump in and out of the box, paw at it, scratch it up, and generally just have a grand old time.

And let’s not forget about marking their territory. Cats have scent glands on their paws and faces, which they use to mark objects and claim them as their own. A cardboard box is the perfect blank canvas for a cat to make their mark and declare to the world, “This is mine!”

So go ahead, build that cardboard cat fort. Your feline friend will thank you for it. And even if they don’t appreciate the intricate design work and clever architecture, at least you’ll have a good laugh watching them poke their little heads out of the various nooks and crannies.

World’s Biggest Pulp Producer Suzano Considers Trading With China in Yuan

More and more countries and MNCs joint the world trend at an unstoppable speed ❗the good news is, once the dollar collapses, the US economy will follow, and the military will be disarmed without war. 

Article HERE

All your West Pacific belong China

What a difference a year makes

Could America Win a New World War? — What It Would Take to Defeat Both China and Russia. Foreign Affairs, journal of the Council on Foreign Relations.

A year ago in these pages I explained why China dominates the West Pacific. Since then, things have developed not necessarily to America’s advantage.

Last year, for example, a US carrier docked at Darwin Port had zero chance of surviving a volley of Chinese DF-26D anti-ship ballistic missiles and a 50-50 chance underway, in open ocean. Its chances are now zero and zero. A new surveillance satellite with onboard AI recognizes and identifies individual warships, tracks them through sleet and storm, and transmits better-than-human information to HQ in real time 24×7. Time on target is infinite, and PLAN screen-shares directly with fire-control, eliminating delays and miscommunication.

The same warships are also tracked by a million sailors in China’s fishing fleets – all directly connected to PLAN Shore Control and some towing Sonar arrays – by gigantic drones that spend months in the stratosphere, by the PLAN’s semi-undetectable subs, by a network of passive receivers on the ocean floor.

What admiral would sail a $30 billion battle fleet and 7,000 crew in range of such weapons when his air wing is still a thousand miles beyond operational range?

LIFE In CHINA vs UK (2023)

Firstest with the Mostest

While never denying its power, Mao called the US military-industrial complex a ‘paper tiger’. One quick, hard punch in the nose is worth 100 later. The punch he delivered in Korea proved his point and, like the Russian Army, the PLAN is prepared to repeat that lesson two generations later.

Early next year, Xi will commission five new Burke class destroyers simultaneously, all of whose thousands of missiles outrange and out-punch their USN counterparts. China has the biggest, most modern, newest, most powerfully armed fleet afloat, manned by the world’ best educated

and motivated sailors.

The PLAAF’s (mass produced) J-20 Mighty Dragons combination of range, speed

and payload I unequalled. In the 2-seater version, the copilot controls three drones that zip ahead to draw fire or attack targets

.

Europe Has Lost Its Guiding Myth

Alastair Crooke

April 24, 2023

There seems to be more cultural energy present in the U.S. today, than there is in Europe, which has long since severed from living myth.

The message sent by the Chinese Defence Minister’s three-day visit to Russia is clear. His reception – a high-profile event – was intentionally invested with high visibility. And at its symbolic centre was a meeting with President Putin on (Orthodox) Easter Day which was consequential, both for being far beyond the norms of protocol, and for occurring on Easter Day, when Putin would not customarily work.

Its key message may be surmised from remarks earlier framed by Hu Xijin, the former editor-in-chief of China’s Global Times: “The U.S. repeatedly claims that China is preparing to provide “lethal military aid” to Russia in the ongoing Ukraine conflict”. But that war has “has been going on for more than a year: And according to the West’s previous calculation, Russia should have already collapsed by now … And, whilst NATO is supposed to be much stronger than Russia, the situation on the ground doesn’t appear as such – which is why it causes [such] anxiety in the West …”.

Hu Xijin continues:

“If Russia alone is already so difficult to deal with, what if China really starts to provide military aid to Russia, using its massive industrial capabilities for the Russian military? [If] Russia alone … is more than a match for the Collective West. If they [the West] really forces China and Russia to join hands militarily – the question that haunts them is that the West will no longer be able to do as it pleases. Russia and China together, would have the power to check the U.S.”.

This essentially was what the Defence Minister’s visit was all about: Events have moved on since Hu wrote that piece in the Global Times a few weeks ago and, if anything, recent developments have lent added dimension to his clarion warning that a Sino-Russian joining of hands – militarily – would mark a paradigm change.

The recent event of the U.S. Intelligence leaks (as well as earlier reports from Seymour Hersh) seem to point to deep internal schism in the U.S. ‘Permanent State’:

One element is convinced that the Ukrainian Spring Offensive is a disaster in the making – with major consequences for U.S. prestige. The Neo-con contingent, on the other hand, bitterly refutes this analysis, and instead demands escalation via immediate preparation (arming Taiwan) against a U.S. war to be waged against both China and Russia soon. The neo-cons claim a Russian panic and collapse could happen within 24 hours of an Ukrainian attack.

To put it plainly, the sudden ignition of neo-con war fever against China has just done what Hu earlier foresaw: It has forced Russia and China to join hands militarily, not necessarily in Ukraine, but rather to plan and prepare for war with the West.

In the wake of the Intelligence leaks, the focus on Ukraine in the U.S. has waned, and been replaced in the U.S. with a rising fever for war with China.

The Chinese Defence Minister’s extended Moscow visit was the tangible evidence that now, China and Russia are convinced that the prospect of war is real, and they are preparing for it. Putin underlined the ‘jointery’ by, inter alia, prioritising the strengthening of the Russian Pacific fleet, and upgrading generally Russian Naval capacities.

This is just crazy: Hu was ‘spot on’. If NATO does not have the military industrial capacity to defeat Russia on its own, how can the U.S. and Europe expect to prevail against China and Russia combined? The notion seems delusional.

Historian Paul Veyne, a towering figure in the history of the ancient Roman world, once posed the question: Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths? All societies, he wrote, contrive to some notional distinction between ‘truth’ and ‘falsity’, but in the end, according to him, this too, is just another ‘fishbowl’, the one we happen to inhabit, and it is in no way superior, as a matter of epistemology, to the fishbowl in which ancient Greeks lived and made sense of their world, in no small part through myths and stories about the gods.

In respect to the myth of the Roman Empire which nourishes U.S. foreign policy, Veyne’s position is profoundly contrarian. For his basic claim is that Roman imperialism had little to do with statecraft, nor economic predation or the assertion of control and the demand of obedience, but rather that was motivated by a collective wish to create a world in which Romans might be left alone, not simply secure, but undisturbed. That is all.

Paradoxically, this account would place the American traditionalist ‘Right’ – which leans to a Burkean-Buchanan perspective –closer to that of Veyne’s Roman ‘reality’ that to that of the neo-cons: i.e. what most Americans wish is for America to be left alone, and to be secure.

Yes, the gods and myths were tangible to the Ancients. They lived through them. The point here is Veyne’s warning against our ‘lazy treating’ of ancient Romans as versions of ourselves, caught up in different contexts, to be sure, but essentially interchangeable with us.

Did the Greeks believe in their Myths? Veyne’s short answer is ‘no’. The public spectacle of authority was an end in itself. It was artifice without an audience – as an expression of authority beyond question. There was no ‘public sphere’, indeed no ‘public’ as such. The state was instrumentalist. Its role was to mediate and keep the Empire aligned and attuned with these invisible and powerful forces.

The gods and myths were understood by the Ancients in a way that is almost wholly alien to us today: They were energetic invisible forces that carried distinct qualities that both shaped the world and carried meaning. Today, we have lost the ability to read the world symbolically – symbols have become rigid ‘things’.

The implication of Veyne’s analysis is that Rome is false as a comparison to support the ‘myth’ of the inevitability of U.S. primacy: The ‘mythical’ neo-con approach of course is instrumentalised to convince us all that U.S. primacy is ordained (by the gods?), and that Russia is low hanging fruit – a fragile rotten structure that easily can be toppled.

Do then the neo-cons believe their own myths? Well, ‘yes’ and ‘no’. ‘Yes’, in that the neo-cons are a group of people who come to share a common view (i.e. Russia as fragile and fissiparous), often proposed by a few ideologues deemed to be credentiallised. It is a view however, not based in reality. These adherents may be convinced intellectually that their view is right, but their belief cannot be tested in a way which could confirm it beyond doubt. It is simply based on a picture of the world as they imagine it to be, or more to the point, as they would like it to be.

Yes, the neo-cons believe their myths because they seem to work. Just look around. As the means of communication have become decentralized, digitized and algorithmic, contemporary culture has forced individuals into herds. There is no standing apart from this discourse; there is no thinking outside of the Tik-Toc feed; it gives rise to the formation of a pseudo-reality, severed from the World, and generated for wider ideological ends.

Put plainly, there never was a ‘public sphere’ in Rome in the modern sense, and in today’s sense, no alive western ‘Public Sphere’ either. It has been anaesthetised via the social media platforms. The public spectacle of neo-con credentiallised ideological authority (say, a Lindsay Graham advocating for war on China) becomes an end in itself. An expression of authority beyond question.

The neo-con myth of Russia on the cusp of implosion makes no sense. But it is a picture of the world as the neo-cons imagine it to be, or more to the point, would like it to be. The shortcomings of the Ukrainian forces as detailed in (their own American) Intel leaks: They pretend not to notice – convinced, as Foreign Policy explains, that once the expected Ukrainian offensive launches, if “the Russian soldiers panic, causing paralysis among the Russian leadership … then the counter-offensive will be successful”.

The more such delusional analysis is pursued, the more functional psychopathy will be exhibited, and the less normal it becomes. In short, it descends into collective delusion – if it hasn’t already.

The U.S. may have entered a fever for war (for now! (Let us see how it lasts as events in Ukraine play out)), but what of Europe? Why would Europe seek war with China?

Thomas Fazi writes that:

“Emmanuel Macron’s call for Europe to reduce its dependency on the United States and develop its own “strategic autonomy” caused a transatlantic tantrum. The Atlanticist establishment, in the U.S. as much as in Europe, responded in a typically unrestrained fashion — and, in doing so, missed something crucial:

“Macron’s words revealed less about the state of Euro-American relations than they did about intra-European relations.

“Very simply, the “Europe” Macron speaks of no longer exists, if it ever did. On paper, almost the entire continent is united under one supranational flag — that of the European Union. But that is more fractured than ever. On top of the economic and cultural divides that have always plagued the bloc, the war in Ukraine has caused a massive fault line to re-emerge along the borders of the Iron Curtain. The East-West divide is back with a vengeance”.

“The end of the Cold War and, then, the CEE countries’ accession to the EU just over a decade later were both heralded as the post-Communist countries’ much-awaited “return to Europe”. It was widely believed that the EU’s universalist project would smooth out any major social and cultural differences between Western and Central-Eastern Europe …Such a hubristic (and arguably imperialistic) project was bound to fail; indeed, tensions and contradictions quickly became apparent between the two Europes”.

Belief in an integral European culture has been more a mark of a central European sensibility than of the western edge of Europe. It was not only Russia that was at issue for the East. They resented being cut off from a world of which they had been an essential part. Yet when communism receded, the European culture – as imagined by the dissidents – vanished in a Europe beset by division and a culture war imposed from the centre that purposefully has attempted to strangle any attempt to revive national cultures. For Milan Kundera and other writers like him, there is no living culture in Europe, and its posterity inhabits a void created by the disappearance of any supreme values.

Paradoxically, the war in Ukraine has strengthened Russian national culture, but has exposed the façade in the EU. There seems to be more cultural energy present in the U.S. today, than there is in Europe, which has long since severed from living myth.

Puerco con Calabasa

Ingredients

• 1 inexpensive cut boneless pork, cut into bite-size pieces
• 1 medium size onion, chopped
• Several cloves garlic, chopped
• Several ears fresh corn, with kernels removed from the cob
• Several fresh tomatoes, chopped
• 2 medium size zucchini, chopped
• Few tablespoons oil
• Salt and pepper, to taste
• Cumin seeds
• 1 bunch fresh cilantro, chopped (optional)
• Cooked rice

Instructions

1. Sauté the garlic with the onions in a few tablespoons of oil in a deep pot. Add the pork and brown, being sure to cook through.
2. Add cumin seeds. Add about 2 cups of water to the pot. Throw in the corn, tomatoes and zucchini. If you don’t have fresh corn or tomatoes, frozen corn and the flavored stewed tomatoes work well. Cook all of this covered on low heat for about 2 hours.
3. Uncover while making rice and let the liquid reduce a little.
4. Now add salt and pepper to taste. If the salt is added too early, it may get too salty as the liquid cooks off. Add the cilantro if you like it.
5. Serve over hot cooked rice.

Asymmetry in the Pacific

Any attack on Chinese territory would draw an equally powerful counterstrike on the US West Coast. Of this there is absolutely no doubt. China’s ICBMs are longer ranged than America’s, and carry more powerful payloads faster and, says Fred Reed,

Defense is impossible. Missile defenses are meaningless except as money funnels to the arms industry. This is not the place to go into decoys, hypersonics, Poseidon, maneuvering glide vehicles, bastion stationing, MIRV, just plain boring old cruise missiles, and so on. Coastal cities are particularly easy targets, being vulnerable to submarine-launched sea-skimming missiles. Washington, New York, Boston, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle for starters. All gone.

Be Prepared

If worse comes to worst, Chinese and Russian preparations for ICBM exchanges are excellent, while the US has no effective defense at all.

Does it strike you as odd that undefended America is provoking a nuclear exchange with the two best defended nations on earth, and which have superior intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance superiority, and can easily strike the US at strategic and operational depths?

Fair Weather Friends

Internationally, Biden is a pariah, cruelly ridiculed at home and abroad insulted to his face. Xi and Putin are rock stars. Xi, who ponied up $3.5 trillion to help poor countries, plays God of Plenty to Putin’s God of War, as the Putin-Xi bromance deepens with time. They seem delighted to have found each other at such a propitious moment. Xi, bless his technocratic heart, obviously digs Putin:

Putin’s reaction to his first standing ovation from national leaders: “For God’s sake, sit down!”. Now he just smiles and takes it.

Our party’s over

We squandered our natural riches, degraded our human resources and hocked (financialized) our assets. Former friends decline our invitations or bring people we can’t stand, then leave early and surly

. Africa didn’t make it. Turkey’s halfway out the door. The Saudis who, like the Turks, spent billions on Russian S-400 systems, said their goodnights. Latin America is outside, waiting for a cab.

The neighborhood has gone downhill in the last 40 years, we’ve maxed our credit cards and, in front of six billion people, we’ve been stealing stuff that other countries entrusted to our care.

By Christmas next year Ukraine will be de-Nazified, its ports in Russian hands. NATO will be at their 1979 locations. Intra-EU cooperation will be a memory. Washington will struggle with stagflation, 35 million Covid invalids, mass homelessness, and even mass hunger

. There are already more illiterate, homeless, hungry children, more drug addicts, poor people, prisoners, suicides, and executions in America than in China.

Theirs is getting started

By Christmas next year, the world will have a new reserve currency and, to forestall Ukraine’s fate, Taiwan Customs and China Customs

will merge

. TSMC will still produce the world’s high end chips, but unfriendly buyers may experience paperwork delays. On the mainland, a new fab in Beijing will be mass producing the first photonic chips, made with Chinese equipment and IP, and signaling the end of copper circuitry and the dawn of an era of higher speeds at lower power.

It will then be obvious that the American century has ended.

7

China Customs already processes most Taiwan exports.

Mexican Stuffed Peppers

Ingredients

• 4 Anaheim chiles
• 1 pound ground beef
• 1 envelope taco seasoning mix
• 1 package shredded cheese
• 1 can enchilada sauce
• 1 medium to large baking dish

Instructions

1. Heat oven to 350 degrees F.
2. Brown ground beef.
3. While beef is browning, cut the top off the Anaheim peppers. Slice down one side of each pepper. De-vein and de-seed chiles to flavor (The more you leave in, the hotter it is!)
4. Add taco seasoning to beef when properly brown and prepare based on directions on taco seasoning package.
5. Place pepper, sliced side up, in a medium to large pan for baking. Stuff each pepper with meat and cheese.
6. Cover all with enchilada sauce. Cover (or don’t – depends on who is cooking) dish and bake for 15 to 20 minutes.
7. Remove from oven and serve.

Rocket Engines

Chinese government selling reusable engines. China’s Academy of Aerospace Liquid Propulsion Technology is marketing reusable rocket engines to speed up the development of China’s commercial space sector, Space News reported.

Three engines are being offered for sale, including the YF-102 kerosene-liquid oxygen gas generator engine, which uses 3D-printing techniques, and the vacuum-optimized YF-102V. The third one is the reusable YF-209 methane-liquid oxygen, 80-ton-thrust engine. The latter is still in development, with hot-fire testing being carried out in February.

Some achievements already … The YF-102 engines have already been used in flight. Three of them powered the first stage of the Tianlong-2 rocket developed by private company Space Pioneer. The first flight of the rocket, in April, was the first Chinese commercial liquid-fueled rocket to send a payload into orbit.

The academy selling the engines is a subsidiary of the China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation, a state-owned space and defense giant and the country’s main space contractor.

What will Russia’s (near) future look like?

Putin has escaped Economic disaster completely now

His Economy delivered positive productivity and his inflation is 3%

Russia has joined the top 10 Economies of the World again since 2014

• Reference article HERE
• Russia enters the top ten economies in the world for GDP

Russia’s realignment with China has been a massive success

The two nations are trading insanely now

China has all the gas and oil it needs without any Western meddling plus Enriched Uranium to build a massive war chest and pay in Yuan

Russians have all the consumer products they once got from the West ENTIRELY substituted from China including Chips and Technology and mainly refinery equipment and EVs

---

So.Russias near future looks like a decoupling from the West

My guess is at least for the next 3–5 years,Russia and China will act as a single BLOC in all geopolitical affairs

Putin is NOT ISOLATED

There are to date 100 countries trading with Russia – 7 South American, 46 African and 47 Asian Countries

That’s only 18 Countries that refuse to do business with Russia of which only three — Japan, S Korea, Singapore that have actively sanctioned Russia

The Middle East and OPEC firmly are neutral and still happily maintain Status Quo with Russia

In the future the US may threaten and threaten many nations and may even succeed in temporary sanctions but the writing is on the wall

THE US MUST DIE

Everyone knows it

THE US MUST BREAK. The World needs a Multipolar order and no more US Hegemony

A Virus that exterminates people, Internal Riots, Flooded and dead with Fentanyl, Economic Chaos, A Meteor Strike or a Destructive War — The US has to go

Less than 30 Nations are actually loyal to US

And 60% of their population are bitterly opposed to the US even here

---

Then there’s the Future of the SMO

NATO will hold the line but frankly to be able to go back to Industrial Production to match Russia’s present abilities will take 4–10years

And by then if they provoke China enough and China just shares 15% of its Production capacity for Armaments for Russia — THATS MORE THAN TWICE THE PRODUCTION OF THE ENTIRE REMAINING WORLD FOR THE NEXT 40 YEARS

So ultimately NATO has to give up on Ukraine and focus on Taiwan

Another 7 years and Taiwan can never be rescued. China , the rate at which it’s building will simply be TOO POWERFUL AND TOO WELL SHIELDED FROM ANY WEAPON BY US — ECONOMIC, TECHNOLOGICAL OR POLITICAL

So Putin is comfortable with the SMO so far

The Economy is safe, the SMO isn’t causing too many problems back home as people aren’t dying in such large numbers

Ukraine is resorting to terrorism and Putin is encouraging it because he wants a situation where the day he decides to exterminate Kiev with Civilian Strikes and kill women and children mercilessly, the Russians CHEER ON

Today Russians almost have relatives and friends in Ukraine in every family and would be horrified if Putin strikes Civilians

That would be a bad move

Instead let Ukraine keep striking more and more civilians and build the anger to a crescendo until at least, Putin calls a war on terror and wipes out 40% of Kiev with 800 Incediary Missiles and 150,000 Incendiary shells

---

So

Russia will move with China and form a Rival Bloc

30 Countries will be Pro West

16 Countries will be Pro Russia

The Rest of the 144 Counties will be Neutral albeit pretending otherwise

Russia will be intertwined economically with China , that’s inevitable

More Russian Industries will see Chinese partners and more Chinese Industries will welcome Russian Partners

Russia and China will form a political bloc in Geopolitics and use the combined influence — China’s financial muscle plus Russia’s Military and Energy muscle to combat the West

---

As for the SMO

Ukraine will launch a Counteroffensive

Ukraine will capture back some territory, maybe 20% by hitting Civilian targets like always

They will expand all the weapons they have managed as Russia will grind them down and kill them at 7:1

Once exhausted , Russia will launch its own offensive with its fresh 300,000 men now trained for almost 7 months to Ukraine’s 4 months with much more equipment and chock to the brim with missiles and ammo

By October — November — the SMO must conclude

Otherwise NATOs China Strategy will start being delayed

Meanwhile China would LOVE to see Ukraine conflict go on till 2025

The more NATO spends on Ukraine, the less it focuses on Taiwan and China gets a longer window to keep building it’s muscle

---

Russias future looks very interesting

I believe the whole world order will change in the next few years

I have more freedom in China!