Miscellaneous News

Phead128

Major
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
I was curious how Russians would feel about it and have been observing them in Telegram. It's certainly discussed a lot but I think the best analogy is it's similar to how Chinese feel regarding the recent movement towards more pro-US by South Korea under Yoon. It's certainly a negative but they kind of just shrug and say well it has to be factored into future geopolitical calculation.

It's very different from intense emotion that Ukraine/Taiwan elicits.

South Korea is already an formal ally of US, so doesn't matter if it goes 100% pro-US or only 50% pro-US sentiment, it's still a treaty-bound US ally.

Finland is constitutionally neutral, but historically has a NATO-leaning bias given joint-military exercises and EU membership.

The Chinese equivalent of Finland joining NATO would be Mongolia (nominally neutral, historically Russia-leaning) joining CSTO alliance led by Russia. And unless China is poor and backwards (like during Soviet-era), there is absolutely no reason why China would shrug that off as if it's inconsequential. Mongolia is a neutral buffer state, and it turning into CSTO state is a huge no-no for Chinese geostrategy. You will see Battle of Zhenbao Island 2.0 before Mongolia would turn CSTO.
 

pmc

Colonel
Registered Member
Is this big news? Seems big but I worry if it will affect Comac negatively.
This does not make sense unless Airbus think Boeing 737 has no future or at same point Airbus is downsizing narrow body in Europe. Global demand will be in wide body as more people moved out from heavy populated places like South Asia towards North or Africa and Latin American flights. distances get larger the closer near equator.
 

CMP

Captain
Registered Member
So, when he last had actual direct access to high level military intel in 2004, already back then he recognized that China would have an upper hand in a land war?

More seriously, while access to direct high level military intel was probably lost in 2004 for him, he likely has been able to 'follow up' on intel from 'friends/former collegues etc.' although since he was from the army, most likely he is only really getting intel in regards to the army, and way less accurate or good intel in regards to airforce and navy.

I suppose that still is kind of a admission/view that the PLAGF might have an upper hand if it came to blows with the US Army, although that's kind of an ugh... not that realistic scenario.
Given a weak, impoverished, and super backwards China fought the US empire to a standstill in the Korean War, is it really shocking that China of the 2000s would be assessed as that much stronger? Hence why the CIA infiltration piece was so critical to US strategy in the 2000s and early 2010s, and Xi's dismantling of that network was so essential to secure China's independence.
 

BoraTas

Major
Registered Member
U.S Colonel MacGregor who is a frequent commentator about the Ukraine war on youtube and most of the time I agree and respect his comments in the subject, raised my eyebrows while acknowledging that China had the upper hand in a land war, in naval matters the PLAN was too scared to sail too far out of home waters in a combat situation because their ships/subs weren't that good and the men were undertrained.
PLAN's near seas focus stems from realistic considerations rather than the capability of their ships.

You don't think about the mid-Pacific if you have the threat right next to you.

China needs to deny huge swathes of water and the waters it needs to deny are close, so it has its fleet structure and operational concepts reflecting that need. If your focus is bullying distant and small countries you build a navy like the Royal Navy. Blue water and green water definitions are unfortunately a part of Western chauvinist circle jerk nowadays and 99% of the people who use the said terms have no idea what they are talking about.

"Force projection" is something the UK and Australia can afford because they actually face no real threat and would be fine with less than half of their current military spending. And I don't care how globally deployable their forces are. Force projection doesn't mean much if your force doesn't pack a punch. Of course, I am assuming that your goal isn't bullying small countries here.
 

horse

Colonel
Registered Member
I don't get the hate for Macron. He is by far the most pro-China EU leader (besides Orban maybe).

Yes. Extremely short sighted.

When it comes to China, a clear split is developing between France Germany and UK USA.

China will not even talk to the latter two.

Just to think, someone was saying this past week that the G7 should come together and get tough with China to stop China from doing any economic coercion.

Who knows, the might spin it in Murdoch media that Marcon was forced and blackmailed into this state visit.
 

baykalov

Senior Member
Registered Member
The meeting between Xi and Macron did not go very well according to Politico.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chinese President Xi Jinping showed no sign of changing his position over Russia’s war on Ukraine after talks Thursday with French counterpart Emmanuel Macron.

On the second day of Macron’s state visit to China, Xi took his long-standing line on Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine — saying that “all sides” have “reasonable security concerns”and gave no hint he would use his influence to help end the conflict.

“China is willing to jointly appeal with France to the international community to remain rational and calm,” was as far as the Chinese leader would go during a press conference at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

“Peace talks should be resumed as soon as possible, taking into account the reasonable security concerns of all sides with reference to the U.N. Charter … seeking political resolution and constructing a balanced, effective and sustainable European security framework,” he added, sitting next to Macron.

The French president arrived in China on Wednesday in the hope of pushing China to use its leverage with Russia to end the conflict, and to get Beijing to speak out against the Kremlin’s threat to host nuclear missiles in Belarus.

During his private meeting with Xi, Macron raised Western concerns that Beijing will deliver weapons to China, according to a French diplomat with knowledge of the talks. But the French leader didn’t seem to get far.

“The president urged Xi not to make deliveries to Russia that would help its war against Ukraine. Xi said this war is not his,” the diplomat said, speaking anonymously to describe the private session.

The talks — which an Elysée Palace official nonetheless described as “frank and constructive” — ultimately lasted an hour and a half.

Afterward, the action moved to a signing ceremony, where officials and business leaders inked several deals, including the sale of 160 Airbus aircraft. According to the Elysée, the Chinese government approved the purchase of 150 A320 Neo planes and 10 A350s — a delivery that was part of a €36-billion deal Airbus announced last year. The information contradicted previous information from an Elysée official, who said a new sale was being negotiated.

During the deal-signing ceremony, every Chinese minister and business executive bowed deeply to Xi before signing the contracts with their French counterparts.

Xi and Macron then stepped in for their joint appearance, billed as a “press conference with Communist characteristics” — essentially meaning no press questions allowed.

The two leaders’ contrasting styles were immediately apparent. Xi read his carefully scripted remarks while staring straight ahead before ceding to Macron. The French leader then proceeded to speak for roughly twice as long as his host — a protocol faux pas that members of Xi’s Chinese entourage noticed.

Xi himself at times looked impatient and annoyed as Macron continued speaking. The Chinese leader heaved several deep sighs and appeared uncomfortable as Macron addressed him directly while apparently ad-libbing on the Ukraine war and their joint responsibility to uphold peace.


Macron also appealed to Xi to explicitly condemn Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

“Speaking about peace and stability means talking about the war waged by Russia against Ukraine. You’ve made some important comments,” the French leader said. “This is a war that involves all of us because a member of the Security Council has decided to violate the U.N. charter. We cannot accept that.”

French lawmaker Anne Genetet, who also held talks Thursday with Chinese officials, admitted there were “no surprises” in the Chinese position on Ukraine, but argued it was still useful to lay some groundwork on the issue.

“It’s the beginning,” Genetet said. “There will be more talks and some private moments [between Xi and Macron]. Maybe we’ll get some other messages.”

Xi and Macron will head to the Chinese city of Guangzhou on Friday, where they will hold more talks and a private dinner.

However, in what will be read as a concession to the French, Xi did talk about the need for the warring parties to “protect victims including women and children,” which comes after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant against Putin over his role in illegally transferring Ukrainian children to Russia.

Xi didn’t explicitly mention Russia in his remarks, though. And in a move likely to irk U.S. officials, Xi also said that China and France should “resume exchanges between the legislative bodies and militaries.” He then included France in a common refrain that Chinese officials use to criticize the U.S.

“China and France shall continue to … oppose Cold War mentality and bloc confrontation, joining hands in addressing all types of global challenges,” Xi said.

On Thursday, Xi also held talks with Macron and with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, who was invited by Macron to showcase European unity but who will not take part in many of the events between the Chinese and French leaders.
 

Phead128

Major
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Independence comes from international recognition. Hezbollah has its own army and spokespeople, foreign policy etc does that make them de facto independent?

Even according to the core documents of the ROC itself, it clearly says that their aim is to win the Chinese civil war, not to establish an independent state on Chinese territory. In that sense, even the DPR or LPR is more de facto independent, because at least their mini-constitutions claim to be independent from Ukraine, whereas ROC doesn't even do that vis a vis China.

That makes them a group that seeks the overthrow of the country's legal authority and potentially a springboard for foreign invaders. Neither de facto nor de jure independence exist.
I'm using these definitions for "Defacto" and "Dejure"

De facto describes practices that exist in reality, whether or not they are officially recognized by laws or other formal norms (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)
De jure describes practices that are legally recognized, regardless of whether the practice exists in reality. (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)

Taiwan is seeking De-jure independence, but it is already De-facto independent (regardless of what their Constitution says).

So Taiwan can do as many useless photo-ops, but unless it translates to tangible security guarantees or formal legal recognitions, it's just a distraction and desperate attempt to appear relevant.
 

clockwork

Junior Member
Registered Member

I think it's quite clear what's happening. The American leadership knows that their MIC-forced confrontation is dangerous and obviously as individuals they don't really want to do it, but they can't exactly just mutiny against the boss who owns them all. So there's this kind of clown show double act going on where they continue to do the whole drive for war with China thing the MIC demands of them behind the scenes but also keep begging China to "talk", and hence all this obsession with crisis communications/escalation management etc. From the perspective of those in the White House it's probably even more obvious where their path leads than to us as outside observers. I'd imagine it's like being a drug dealer: you're not exactly comfortable with it and know you're probably gonna die a violent & early death one day as a result of your work, but the pay is too good and you can't exactly just get out of the game, so you keep doing it and just vent to one of your think tankie friends every now and then.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The MIC rats bitching and moaning about this again lol
 
Top