pull down to refresh

China 'ready for war' w/ America and Sec Hegseth Comments Evaluated
544 sats \ 55 comments \ @Cje95 15 Apr Politics_And_Law
In March when the trade war was first starting to kick off China's representatives in America said: “If war is what the US wants, be it a tariff war, a trade war or any other type of war, we’re ready to fight until the end.”
Is that possible though? How realistic is the treat? Some like Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have said that China could take out the entire US Aircraft Carrier Fleet in 20 minutes and claim that the US consistently loses in war games against China. There is a critical issue with that though and that is the US has a massive tendency to overestimate their enemies capabilities. Look no further than Russia.
To get a better understanding of this I went diving into this over the last couple of weeks. There are a couple of people in the US military space I follow. I havent thought of them this way because they tend to just explain stuff but some might call them mil bloggers. The first one is Preston Stewart who does a great job in explaining geopolitics( war, conflict, national security) from a military perspective and the second one is Alex Hollings who is much more in the R&D side and explaining weapons systems. Both of these guys are fantastic sources who are highly regarded in the space and funny enough have been cited incorrectly by our advisories to explain how say Russia's Su-57 was a game changer the best war fighter ever made.
I continued to look at other things from both a historical context, the US has been in recent wars while China has not been in quite a while, as well as research published by reputable sources. That is where I found RAND Corporations "The Chinese Military's Doubtful Combat Readiness" report from earlier this year which had been recently updated.
What was found and the conclusion reached... well it made a ton of sense when you think about it in general.
  1. The Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) is focused on upholding CCP rule rather than preparing for war. It has prioritized political loyalty and enforcement of CCP rule over combat readiness
  2. China's population is in a decline and cracks have begun to show in society. For example just a couple of years ago there were protests in China at banks that resulted in military deployment. Having to focus on keeping the CCP in power over actual military action erodes preparedness further.
  3. War with the US directly faces few pros for China at this point and indirect methods like cutting off critical minerals or hacking among other methods would be much better for them.
  4. China has not fought since 1979 so most people in the military do not have any sort of war experience
For China starting a war would be the last thing they would want. This includes even Taiwan because they are not going to be able to capture the chip manufacturing facilities intact and they have driven TSMC to build factories in the US and look to build them in Europe as well. An invasion would be extremely deadly for China due to how Taiwan has structured its porcupine defenses and the Taiwanese people have continued to vote against pro-China parties so the population would fight tooth and nail just like we have seen in Ukraine.
When you factor in the crazy corruption that has been recently uncovered and how they keep firing generals and other top defense officials the PLA doesn't have a clean and clear pecking order and the equipment they do have.... its a solid question to ask what is real and works. For now it would seem China is going to make a ton of comments but very very unlikely to act upon anything.
It was just a few weeks ago they "launched" a brand new sub.... only for it to immediately sink to the bottom of the river and become unsalvageable.
write
preview
related posts
1034 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 15 Apr
I really get bad vibes from Hegseth.
War hawks always paint adversaries as stronger than they really are. This happened during the cold war and I have a strong suspicion it is happening now with China.
I'm sure there are hawks in China but it seems to me that there is far more reason for China to fear US military action than the reverse. I mean just look at the last 40 years.
I'm not suggesting China is our friend but I am suggesting that just like in the past there are well connected people with a lot of incentives to make China our enemy and build it up as more dangerous than it is.
Americans need to try to view things through the lens of our supposed enemies and stop buying the propaganda that the USA is always the good guy. I mean if people think about it long enough they know that isn't true. Just look at our politics and how people view different administrations. We get so wrapped up in US politics we neglect to understand how other nations perceive the actions of the US regime.
Talk to people from other countries when you get the opportunity. Don't focus on who is right but rather I understanding what they think and why. Perceptions. It's fascinating when you do.
reply
61 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 OP 15 Apr
I mean China has consistently said they would take Taiwan by force if they need to and 2027 is a huge anniversary year for them (100th year of the PLA founding). 2027 will also mark the 21st Party Congress where Xi will clearly move for a 4th term in office.
Yes the US has historically painted the advisory as stronger but that isnt always a bad thing as goals against them can be much easier accomplished and the civilian population will be happy.
The US cares about its chip supply which right now and for the next probably 5-10 years will heavily involve Taiwan. It is critical to the US economy over many other things and many other countries.
Right now the way that the US and others have positioned themselves via freedom of navigation flights and sailing ships is the most peaceful check to China that can happen.
reply
36 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford 15 Apr
The threat of China IMO is that they are building economic relationships in the global south in ways where these nations are in debt to them. They are doing what the US has done but without military violence.
My strategy to gaurd against this is simple. Believe in free markets more than they do and return to hard money(bitcoin). This would mean massive deregulation and massive shifts in economic pull towards the US as well as increased prosperity.
It seems that a certain group in Washington in both parties thinks we have to be at war at all times. These people need to be rejected. They have been responsible for massive death and destruction. They don't beleive in liberty and always run to central planning. They overestimate centrally planned economies and underestimate the power of free trade and capitalism. These people are trying to steer Trump and seem to be getting more control. It's not good.
reply
40 sats \ 3 replies \ @Cje95 OP 15 Apr
We just saw Panama though tear those up and other countries rebel and push back against belt and road because China doesnt have the navel power to enforce what it wants at the end of the day.
War for better or worse is one of the best things for an economy and that has been shown throughout history. The victor ends up reaping benefits. Iraq and Syria most recently have been huge "wins" economic wise for the US. Really the only one in recent history is Vietnam that while we didnt lose militarily we lost because we left.
I dont see these people as central planning because the last 25 years it sure as hell hasnt gone to anyones plan. Bottom line is military sales are lucrative AF. From exports to a nation itself arming up it creates a lot of jobs a lot of spending and citizens typically win from that side since they are good and often high paying manufacturing and engineering jobs.
reply
5 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 15 Apr
You consider Iraq and Syria successes? Economically? Really surprises me. War is not good for economic growth. You are seeming to state the broken window fallicy might be good for some economic actors but not the world as a whole nor the US.
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 15 Apr
For those not familiar with "the broken window fallacy" it is a good thing to think about.
The parable of the broken window was introduced by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in his 1850 essay "That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen" ("Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas") to illustrate why destruction, and the money spent to recover from destruction, is not actually a net benefit to society.
The parable seeks to show how opportunity costs, as well as the law of unintended consequences, affect economic activity in ways that are unseen or ignored. The belief that destruction is good for the economy is consequently known as the broken window fallacy or glazier's fallacy.
~ Parable of the broken window
The great Henry Hazlitt put it this way
It is never an advantage to have one’s plants destroyed by shells or bombs unless those plants have already become valueless or acquired a negative value by depreciation and obsolescence. ... Plants and equipment cannot be replaced by an individual (or a socialist government) unless he or it has acquired or can acquire the savings, the capital accumulation, to make the replacement. But war destroys accumulated capital. ... Complications should not divert us from recognizing the basic truth that the wanton destruction of anything of real value is always a net loss, a misfortune, or a disaster, and whatever the offsetting considerations in a particular instance, can never be, on net balance, a boon or a blessing.
~ Henry Hazlitt
Many years ago I picked up "Economics in One Lesson" and it opened up a new world to me of logically challenging many things I'd been told growing up listening to people like Rush Limbaugh and the main stream media. Limbaugh was actually correct more often than not but on many topics his positions and those of both parties were completely wrong.
One of the most popular myths I used to believe was that WW2 got us out of the depression. And from this people would say, well what we need to get the economy going is a good war.
Like tariffs the question is good for who? Yeah, if you work in certain industries and in certain countries you might profit from war. See "War Is a Racket".
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 15 Apr
I dont see these people as central planning because the last 25 years it sure as hell hasnt gone to anyones plan.
You mistake success as evidence of the attempt. They are far more liberal than communists from the USSR era but make no mistake there has been central planning (that has failed) at work in the middle east.
reply
32 sats \ 4 replies \ @SimpleStacker 15 Apr
I hope you're right. I do agree that the Chinese military has little experience, and that the generals are more likely to have political skills than warfighting skills.
But damned if they wouldn't be able to outproduce us by factors of 10 or more.
reply
30 sats \ 3 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Apr
The Chinese military has an absence of evidence that they're competent.
The American military has evidence of an absence of competence.
reply
27 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 OP 15 Apr
If it is eliminating someone from the Earth the US is second to none lol. What we fail at is Nation Building. We have sucked at it since WWII and the reason we were successful in the countries after WWII was we maintained a long standing influence (out military was stationed there in large numbers)
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 15 Apr
If it is eliminating someone from the Earth the US is second to none
In willingness, yes, but other countries are similarly able.
reply
29 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 OP 15 Apr
Not sure how many are launching ninja swords at cars lmao.... Russia has us on the blant poisoning of people by far though... the US can and will touch you anywhere no matter what.... we just have a mad logistics network that is second to none.
reply
58 sats \ 2 replies \ @Bishop 15 Apr
Interesting. It seems talk is cheap ('we're ready to fight until the end') but actual battle readiness is not just expensive but also hard to prove.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Cje95 OP 15 Apr
Exactly was the conclusion I reached. China has recently been sending officers to Russian front lines... not to fight but to study the war and learn
reply
5 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 15 Apr
I imagine that China is like the US in this way. There are diverse views and likely even people that are given platforms to threaten things like this. There isn't a uniform "China" even unified CCP. There are likely factions. Some favoring war, others that want to avoid it if at all possible.
Bottom line. Stay skeptical. I don't see China itching to start a war with the US. There's much to lose. Not saying it can't or won't happen but its far from unavoidable and we should be trying to avoid war. Not seek it out. War is incredibly wasteful and the plebs pay the cost on all sides. The elites get richer and more control over the masses. No respecting pleb should support the warfare state. We have too much to lose.
reply
59 sats \ 23 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Apr
the US has a massive tendency to overestimate their enemies capabilities.
This seems starkly at odds with the past 60 years of US military interventions.
The important fact is that both China and the US can destroy all human life on Earth. The stakes are too high for countries like this to ever have direct military conflict. The most likely outcome of such a conflict is that we all lose.
For now it would seem China is going to make a ton of comments but very very unlikely to act upon anything.
This is also my impression. Both countries know there won't be a direct military conflict, but they're willing to saber rattle and bluster, which they think makes them look tough. It actually makes them look weak, imho.
reply
47 sats \ 19 replies \ @Cje95 OP 15 Apr
Iraq was the 3/4th largest and one of the top militaries in the world before Operation Desert Storm. That didnt take long. Russia was another that the last 20 years we have kept on par with ourselves but look at Ukraine....
My one question about China is does Xi end up pulling a Putin and want to go out as a great leader restoring his country (taking Taiwan) and end up fumbling it all.
reply
34 sats \ 9 replies \ @kepford 15 Apr
And Iraq was backed by the US before this. This is what I mean by central planning. Trying to manipulate the whole globe. To make into western democracy. Its absurdly arrogant.
reply
67 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Apr
I was going to mention that, too. Even if Iraq had a large military, they were basically a US vassal state. Simultaneously losing support from and being attacked by the US was something they were wholly unprepared for.
reply
32 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford 15 Apr
Some days man... some days its like the right hasn't learned a single lesson on the wars of our lifetimes. Being anti-war is surprisingly unpopular.
reply
35 sats \ 4 replies \ @kepford 15 Apr
On days when I'm feeling less charitable and maybe haven't prayed... I wanna say... wow, are people this naive and dumb? Why do they believe liars over and over again? But that's not fair. Most people don't pay attention. They live their lives and just want to keep a little of what they earn. They are abused and manipulated by masters in this arena.
view all 4 replies
25 sats \ 1 reply \ @Cje95 OP 15 Apr
They actually had a stupid supply of USSR defenses the air defense of theirs was all Scuds and other USSR equipment. Even though they diversified during the Iran-Iraq war during the Kuwait invasion and occupation by their own accords they had military people training Iraqi forces
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Apr
Doesn't seem to have gone much better than America training Iraqi forces.
reply on another page
39 sats \ 8 replies \ @Undisciplined 15 Apr
Maybe by body count Iraq was that high. They had nowhere near the 4th most military capacity, though.
You always bring up Ukraine as though Russia is suffering some huge defeat there. I just don't see what you're talking about. Russia swiftly took all of the territory I expected them to take and they've been holding it against a Ukraine with nearly endless NATO resources at its disposal. Maybe you just had the wrong expectation going in.
I agree that in some ways Russia was overblown. It's useful to have a big scary boogeyman and being honest about Russia having the same GDP as Italy makes them seem quite a bit less threatening. On the other hand, people constantly pushing for military escalation against Russia are significantly underblowing the threat the pose to all of us.
reply
45 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford 15 Apr
You can't take the statements of the time as fact. Its laughable to think they were the fourth in military capacity. And besides that, there is a MASSIVE gap between most military spending in the US and everywhere else. Let alone the actual forces and their effectiveness. And yet... the US managed to waste years and lives in Afghanistan and Vietnam.
Also, don't forget that the American was manipulated into desert storm based on lies. The Iraqi soldiers killing babies in incubators was a lie. Hill and Knowlton came up with the pitch and the girl that testified was the daughter of a diplomat.
I was growing up during this time. That war was formative for me. Years later I learned about the way the public was manipulated. I also learned more about many other events in which the media and state deceived the masses. Ever since I've been skeptical of anything either the government or media tells me to believe. So pardon me if I don't believe the current war hawks and their stories of the end of the world.
I grew up being taught lies about the USSR. I watched the wall fall and the US screw the Russian people by manipulating their economy and politics. I remember Putin and US politicians seeming to get along. That could not be allowed to happen.
Good lord the elites are dark evil people. How @Cje95 and others work in DC is something I can't imagine. I like how Massey refers to it as Mordor. That's my view. I don't hate the my people but I hate the evil works being done in the name of the people.
reply
63 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 OP 16 Apr
lol I hate DC with a passion first off but don’t give Iraq a clean slate in the slightest cause of a lie. They invaded a sovereign country who at the time wasn’t part of OPEC and sold us cheap oil.
As for the Iraq army… look that’s what they thought there was a reason Delta force and SAS were dropped into Iraq to hunt down Skud missiles… they were an issue.
The Iraqi army was also one of the best combat ready militaries after the 10 year Iran war… US hadn’t seen shit in almost 20 years and it was an entirely different type of war than Nam or Korea.
Every life matters but you do know Afghanistan was one of it not (don’t have the numbers in front of me) least deadly wars for American soldiers. We spent 20 years there are lost 2,420 soldiers… one soldier ever 3-4 days is a wild war statistic
reply
41 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 16 Apr
I'm not giving Iraq a clean slate... just pointing out the US public was lied into the war and this has been a pattern going back into some of the first conflicts of this government.
reply on another page
36 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 16 Apr
For future reference, I never give any government a clean slate. I am just more vocal about the US government because far to many Americans think we can do no wrong and we are always the good guys. There usually isn't a good guy in a war though and the US creates many of the messes we are told need to be cleaned up.
reply on another page
39 sats \ 3 replies \ @Cje95 OP 16 Apr
So if you go back to the history records it doesn’t matter if you where a West or East follower Iraq was a top 5 military. They were what we would consider a modern day Germany. Under the US and USSR but right with the top of the next tier.
Putin said the operation would be what 3 days? Well now over two years later and Russia has had more casualties than the US has had in a conflict since the Civil War and it’s not stopping. Russia had to use North Korea as a backfill for its gaps. Russia has lost more ground then they have gained since the first couple of months by a significant margin. Kherson reclaimed, Kyiv not going to have Russians roll through, Kharkiv pretty solid standing.
Meanwhile Russian hardware is getting decimated and we are seeing them roll out WWII era tanks. We have seen a freaking old ass Bradly we had in the bone yard shred a Russian tank like no one’s business. Russia is only advancing because Ukraine is held over a barrel but with Germany prepping to send long range missiles to Ukraine the Russians are SOL. Plus let’s not forget these deep strikes and unmanned semi submersibles are 100% Ukrainian created and deployed.
Russia was the scary man with the nukes and maybe possibly sorta a deadman switch
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Undisciplined 16 Apr
Russia always has tons of casualties. That's how they wage war. They conquered the bulk of the territory very quickly and now Trump is pressuring everyone to make peace and recognize this new reality. I don't see the SOL scenario for Russia, but I feel like I've been hearing about how badly Russia's losing since the beginning. It rings hollow.
You can keep maintaining that Iraq had an elite military, but it's still ridiculous and people knew at the time that it was a ridiculous claim. Sometimes you had to live through an event to really know the truth of it. Iraq was never a military match for any of US, Russia, China, UK, Israel, and plenty of others who could have scaled up their military force very quickly if they had to.
reply
23 sats \ 1 reply \ @Cje95 OP 16 Apr
China wasn’t a play at all in the 90’s? Iraq was focused on Iran and before that Israel was told to not do anything because the US would handle it. Russia admitted to having military trainers in Iraq during this conflict sooo I guess the UK is what was left and they joined the coalition and deployed the SAS?
I’m also not some 20 year old like I think y’all think I am 😂 I know my stuff and I’m sadly/for better or worse immersed in it 24/7 now.
The truth of the matter was Russia was training Iraq during the invasion of Kuwait. Scuds were a solid missile and thankfully since they only attached Israel at night and Israel construction was so good casualties there were minimized. When Iraq launched them in Saudi Arabia… well of the 147 killed I. Action 28 died due to an attack. Hence Delta Squad and the SAS insertion.
You keep saying people thought it was a ridiculous claim but the historical evidence says otherwise.
view all 1 replies
37 sats \ 2 replies \ @kepford 15 Apr
overestimate their enemies capabilities.
I think that statement is true. Iraq is a great example. But at the same time the US underestimates the cost of conflict to a point that I often wonder if they care at all. Victory seems like an inevitable outcome to them
So one the one hand the enemy is so dangerous we have to do something and we can and will win because we are the best. Both ideas seem strong in war hawks.
reply
60 sats \ 1 reply \ @Undisciplined 15 Apr
Good point. I guess I usually dismiss the public statements as knowing lies to get us into a war that they think will be easy (and profitable).
reply
32 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 15 Apr
For sure, was just thinking the same thing. One has to separate the "marketing" from reality.
The Iraq war was a massive boon for those select few multi-national corps that were a part of the rubblization and rebuilding. The oil companies and various military contractors.
reply
5 sats \ 5 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 15 Apr
China has won the trade war. Trumps reactionary tariffs admit this. The war is almost certain to be primarily an economic one even if Iran and Russia are already Chinese proxies waging military campaigns against the US and its wider interests. The war is for control of the global financial system. China is building its alternative to SWIFT/USD trade payments. mBridge has been built to enable digital trade payments between BRICS and other nations where they have already implemented or are about to implement domestic CBDC protocols. China, India, Brazil and Thailand already have functioning domestic digital payments protocols operated via their central banks. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Russia, Iran and others are near implementation of domestic CBDC payments capability. Chinas mBridge proposes the trade payments protocol for the 21st century and if implemented it displaces USD/SWIFT. At that point any speculation over the relative potency of US military force becomes more or less academic as the US empire is today utterly dependent upon its USD/SWIFT based financial monetary system hegemony to fund its military. Today USA spends more paying rent on its debt than it does on its military. Again Trumps tariffs war sought to address this by boosting government revenue and decreasing US consumption of imports. But Trumps desperate strategy failed and USTs faced imminent collapse. China has won the trade war and its assumption of dominance over trade payments and ultimately over time global financial systems is in progress. The USA must first address its imminent debt UST threat of insolvency and consequent loss of USD/SWIFT hegemony before anything else...because loss of USD hegemony triggers loss of all subsequent military and strategic abilities.
reply
7 sats \ 4 replies \ @Cje95 OP 15 Apr
I was wondering when you would show up and tell me the US was falling apart. BRICS is cool and all but what is the one common currency they are going to use? China devalues the Yen in front of people and if you think Iran and Saudi will agree to use each others your crazy. That is why the USD is sticking around there isnt a replacement. Sure throw it up on a blockchain is cool but it doesnt matter when the countries wont accept the others and do not want to use someone elses.
Also I think Iraq, Iran, Syria, Russia, etc. would beg to differ on US military arms. Its all fun and games till a hellfire or ATACMS lands on your head.
reply
5 sats \ 3 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 15 Apr
Russia is now dependent upon China to arrange and settle its oil and gas trade- China now buys most of Russias oil and gas output. In return China fascilitates trade payments for Russia and supplies manufactured goods which sustain the Russian economy. Likewise Iran. China has demonstrated the ability to provision such essential trade payments even where the respondent nation has been sanctioned by the US. China as a member of the IMF reserve currency board is both inside the USD/SWIFT system and essential to its viability, and building its own new digital alternative. mBridge.
The Yuan is more stable in value than the USD. USD denominated trade only makes sense as long as USD/SWIFT has a stranglehold on trade payments- and that stranglehold is facing an imminent challenge namely- mBridge. India and Russia remain closely aligned militarily and economically. They both trade with China. Tensions between nations willnot always prevent them from maximising their trade position advantage and the strength of the Chinese economy is now such that all nations must trade with them or suffer significant economic disadvantage.
The mBridge protocol while led by China enables bilateral trade payments- so on it India and Russia could make payments denominated in their respective currencies, or if they chose Yuan...if it is more stable in value, which it is.
So energy exports from Russia and Iran to China are already denominated in Yuan-simply because both Russia and Iran need the Chinese manufactured goods those Yuan access..and becasue China can and does enable the trade payments. Saudi Arabia joining both BRICS and mBridge signals they also have an interest in having access to an alternative to the USD/SWIFT, sanctions prone hegemony. The US/USD/SWIFT hegemony is facing imminent collapse. Such a collapse would make most assumed military response options become swiftly redundant. Trumps actions acknowledge this reality even if some of his public facing his underlings and supporters are not ready to confront it...the US public however deserves to know the truth as and when it is ready to.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 OP 15 Apr
Russia is now dependent upon China to arrange and settle its oil and gas trade- China now buys most of Russias oil and gas output. In return China fascilitates trade payments for Russia and supplies manufactured goods which sustain the Russian economy.
India would like a word.
The Yuan is more stable in value than the USD.
Kids this is a textbook example of why we stay away from crack.... this makes zero since as China literally has two Yuan currencies
So energy exports from Russia and Iran to China are already denominated in Yuan-simply because both Russia and Iran need the Chinese manufactured goods those Yuan access.
Ah yes this is why both Russia and Iran are just thriving right?!?! Drowning in goods? I mean butter is only $12 a stick in Russia but thats 110% a thriving economy
imminent collapse.
When I die and it still hasnt collapsed I will def think back to this
I am not sure what you are smoking.... but damn it must be some wild shit.
reply
5 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 16 Apr
You are not making a lot of sense and none of the strawmen you construct are actually credible let alone capable of refuting the points I have made.
India is a small economy in terms of goods exported and imported...ranked about 25th. It contributes about 1.5% to the total world trade in manufactured goods and commodities. Russia is not much larger at about 2%. See this graph to see how China is now significantly dominates global trade.
https://unctad.org/topic/trade-analysis/chart-10-may-2021
China is at over 15% of global trade (twice the size of US and Germany who are numbers 2 and three) and by far the largest single trading nation- as such China can now provision most of the manufactured goods required by any nation and can buy their commodities such as oil.
The managed value of the Yuan gives it stability and utility for trade payments. It is managed just as the USD was once managed to give a stable price until the USD went full fiat, fully detached from gold, and began its steady and rapid debasement and decline.
India and Russia have long had close economic ties and the fact that Russia is now dependent upon China for trade payments and sale of its oil and gas exports has not harmed India and Russia mutual trade. Russia is now providing China with nuclear submarine technology and other technologies improving Chinas military capabilities.
Russia and Iran economies may not be thriving but they are still functioning and Putin is not cowed by Trumps (empty) threats of further sanctions if he does not cease the war in Ukraine. Putin knows Trump is desperate to get Russia back under the USD/SWIFT trade payments hegemony because the ongoing demonstration that a client state of China can now not just survive, but continue to wage war against Ukraine and its western backers despite US/SWIFT sanctions is a demonstration that signals to other nations that dependency upon USA is no longer the only option open to them.
China now provisions a comprehensive full service alternative for trade, trade payments enabling significant economic and military capabilities. Russia and Irans attacks on US associates in the middle east and Europe are funded by Chinas purchase of their energy exports. This costs US significantly while profiting China economically, strategically and symbolically. China is reverse engineering the Opium Wars, this time against the west.
If mBridge becomes fully and openly operational and the Saudis join, then the petrodollar and US hegemony is all over.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 OP 16 Apr
You must be a comedian cause honestly it is soooooo funny what you say and how you bend and twist a source or two into your favor. It’s so disconnected from reality I mean honestly wtf do you smoke cause that is some WILD shit.
China innovates what exactly? TikTok? And even that was Music.ly a US company Bytedance bought 😂 China itself has not innovated and manufacturing is leaving. 18-35 year olds have a 25% unemployment rate. Why do people never see homeless in China? Oh because they arrest them and send them off to rural areas and drop them off.
You understand you are on a bitcoin and an individual rights place right? So you want a managed system but you also scream free market? Those don’t work bud.
China latest nuclear sub is currently at the bottom of the Yangtze River… Russia ln Nulcear subs… welp RIP the Kursk… so not exactly safe subs and they haven’t been pumping out nuclear subs recently… wonder why that might be?
Russia and Iran economies functioning is wild considering Russia is 100% on war footing and their mil bloggers have said they can’t end the war without a complete economic collapse. Iran is struggling with basic needs of its citizens so that’s just a moronic take.
Final though Trump isn’t trying to get Russia back onto SWIFT where the hell are you reading that 😂 get off of your Russian propaganda sites!
reply on another page
7 sats \ 0 replies \ @justin_shocknet 15 Apr
The same people that tell you China is incompetent are the same ones that still would tell you Ukraine is winning. They'll also tell you China is porked financially... and while the narrative lately is that wars only start when one side is wrong about who's going to win, there's another scenario, when a financial hail-mary is required. It would seem confrontation is inevitable, by their logic.
Even if we completely dismiss their traditional military, their 5GW asymmetric abilities have killed a million with fentanyl and extracted trillions from us economically... do we really want their sleeper cells activated and taking out our electrical substations next? Movies like "Leave the world behind" are comms letting you know what's on the table.
chip manufacturing facilities
It's a globalist test fail whenever this is still brought into the equation, its about naval power projection (breaking the island chain etc...) into the pacific from the US side, and nothing more.
The hedge on supply chain risks started a long time ago, was literally just announced the latest nvidia chips are being made in AZ.
Remember the psyop with NFL teams were flying masks and shit in on their own planes during the fake pandemic? Exposure op. The supply chain risks either net out or have already been mitigated.
act upon anything
Our treaty with the Phillipines should have this kinetic already if that's what the US wanted, in terms of Thucydides Trap, so why does China keep poking the bear?
The only comm's we're getting that there might not be a confrontation is the alleged rapport between Trump and Xi and whatever they hatched up in the Forbidden City during his first term.
There's a lot of confounding things going on, the fog of war is real, but the "lol their submarine sunk" is the lowest IQ case against take I've seen outside of The Atlantic.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Dkryptoenth 16 Apr
Invariably, are we expecting a world war 3? Lol
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @OT 15 Apr
One thing that I think the CCP so a good job at is giving the impression that they are strong and powerful. During the Beijing Olympics they built walls around crumbling houses to give visitors a better impression. I found this type of thing everywhere in China. It's all aesthetics. Superficial.
There's a Sun Zu quote: (which I'll probably butcher here) When weak, appear strong. When strong, appear weak.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 OP 16 Apr
Omg remember the smoke stack during the winter one?! 😂😂😂
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 15 Apr
Looking at the history of the conflict that now exists between China and the west/USA, China originally rejected the British invitation to enter a trade relationship. Britain wanted access to Chinas produce, such as tea and porcelain but the Chinese Emperor rejected the British entreaties and responded saying China did not want or need anything from the British. The British response was to attack militarily and to smuggle Opium into Shanghai. The superior British military force subjugated Chinas army and China was forced into paying reparations for defending its own territory from British military attack. As part of these 'reparations' the British demanded Hong Kong as a territory and subsequently based their banking there from which they were enabled to force trade upon China. Subsequently most other western imperial nations demanded and gained territory and concessions from the humiliated Chinese, and China was thrown into a century of humiliation, ending with the vicious Japanese invasion and 1937 massacre of Nanqing and the subsequent enslavement of most of China to the Japanese WW2 efforts. China thus understands very well how trade and military force are related and has primarily responded by building its mercantile power and playing by the rules the west has set. Now that the west, primarily USA has lost the trade war it imposed, the west wants to change the rules of engagement, at at this point the threat of military force is a real one. China is in a much stronger position than it was in 1840 and its understanding of the nature of western imperialism, and how to respond to it, is also more developed.
reply
7 sats \ 4 replies \ @Cje95 OP 15 Apr
Interesting how you almost exclusively talk about.... Britain and China when that isn't anywhere near the target none of the people I mentioned bring up the British it soley came from you.
The U.S. played a crucial role in supporting China, with President Franklin D. Roosevelt considering China one of the "four policemen" alongside the U.S., Britain, and the Soviet Union, envisioning it as a cornerstone of a new world order post-war. However, China faced significant challenges due to its limited resources and the ongoing civil war between the Chinese Nationalist Party and the Communist Party.
Lets also not forget about the American Government financing American Volunteer Groups like the Flying Tigers and how the USSR occupied part of China, excluded the Nationalists from the Yalta Conference and then took a ton of equipment and resources before leaving allowing Mao to easily take over China however, leave it missing a ton of its own stuff. Cause the Chinese and Russians have suchhhhhhhh a great history together right? Just like the land Russia continues to exert control over that it never gave back after WWII?
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 16 Apr
You have the wrong century if referencing The Opium Wars. Regarding the 20th century post WW2, China was only admitted to the security council on the (incorrect) assumption that the Chinese Nationalist Party would be victorious over the CCP. As we should all be aware now CCP won the battle and the Nationalists fled to Taiwan taking with them Chinas Treasury gold holdings. USA could not accept this new reality for several decades as the puppet government they had expected to be the government in China was now a remnant fugitive. Please read the relevant history and get your centuries/chronology in order. Start with the Opium Wars from 1840 and work from there. Westerners widespread ignorance of The Opium Wars does help explain the widespread misunderstanding of the current situation as The Opium Wars are more or less where it all started.
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Cje95 OP 16 Apr
Honest to God A+ job on speaking out your ass. You brought up Britain I say what are you talking about then you pivote to me being wrong about the Opium wars.
Next part of your… I guess rebuttal deals with gold but I was talking about the USSR and what they did? No comments from you about that again just a waving of hands what about this comment.
You are the one trying to add new things I never talked about then are telling me to get educated 😂 with all my heart fuck off I didn’t bring up anything that you are claiming I need to learn up on and didn’t address any of my points.
Also it’s clear you don’t know your history cause it wasn’t until the Spanish American War the US was deemed an up and coming super power and we didn’t do that much for WWI. It was WWII that we went nuts on and dropped suns on Japan.
Also check your Opium War dates… ya might wanna be correct before you try and tell someone what to do 😂
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Solomonsatoshi 16 Apr
Check out the Opium Wars dates yourself. They started in 1840 and began the serial and ongoing incursion of western and Japanese imperialism upon Chinese sovereignty from that date. It was not until Hiroshima and the US airlifting the Japanese occupying forces out of China that China was not constantly imposed upon although the US still sought to remove the new Chinese government via Korea and via efforts to capture Tibet for the positioning of nuclear missiles which would have left China extremely exposed and vulnerable to US aggression. The US did not formally recognise the mainland Chinese government until the 1970s. For any deep understanding of the current situation regarding China the Opium Wars are the correct starting point- one you appear tragically ignorant of. One that most Chinese are however well aware of. I am not obliged to respond to you incorrect, irrelevant and muddled assertions just as I am not responsible for your lack of historical knowledge. Just hope some US govt employees have a better grasp on Sino-West history and its logical implications than you demonstrate.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Cje95 OP 16 Apr
September 1839 I actually could not find a source that said it started in 1940 as even the British Government and China state it started in 1939 but according to you both governments are wrong lmao the ignorance is beyond me...
In spring 1839 the Chinese government confiscated and destroyed more than 20,000 chests of opium—some 1,400 tons of the drug—that were warehoused at Canton (Guangzhou) by British merchants. The antagonism between the two sides increased in July when some drunken British sailors killed a Chinese villager. The British government, which did not wish its subjects to be tried in the Chinese legal system, refused to turn the accused men over to the Chinese courts.
British warships attacking a Chinese battery on the Pearl (Zhu) River during the First Opium War, 1841. Hostilities broke out later that year when British warships destroyed a Chinese blockade of the Pearl River (Zhu Jiang) estuary at Hong Kong.
Also would love to see some evidence of this supposed air lift of Japanese forces from China. Were surrendered forces returned? Of course as with POWs.
You did help me remember of The Hump which was a daring thing again for arming China during the conflict.
reply on another page