So hopefully just another grifter.
On the article he's dreaming Wang Qishan brought down Xi. Really, Wang Qishan? That's like dreaming Pompeo denouncing and voting 25th Amendment against Trump.
On the article he's dreaming Wang Qishan brought down Xi. Really, Wang Qishan? That's like dreaming Pompeo denouncing and voting 25th Amendment against Trump.
So the West is now writing fan fiction? Is that whats going on here?
But putting that aside, I never got the impression that Xi was a very original thinker. I think hes there to legitimize ideas that have bubbled up from the bottom of the party.
the idea that there is a large pro-west faction seems stupid once u realize that Xi is not the one ramming his agenda through. W*sterners think Xi is in total control because their conception of a dictator is based off Darth Vader lol
But putting that aside, I never got the impression that Xi was a very original thinker. I think hes there to legitimize ideas that have bubbled up from the bottom of the party.
the idea that there is a large pro-west faction seems stupid once u realize that Xi is not the one ramming his agenda through. W*sterners think Xi is in total control because their conception of a dictator is based off Darth Vader lol
Joe Biden is a fascist. Trump was far easier to please, so I am only expecting more downside to the relationship.
More like Wang Qishan as Darth Sidious and Pres. Xi as Lord Vader being manipulated and controlled only to be discarded once his apparent usefulness to the empire is all but finished.
I can get why the author lists Wang Qishan because he's considered a "king maker" in the party - many people he's mentored (including Xi himself.... Wang is 5 years older and played a sort of mentoring or big-brotherly role to Xi when they were kids during the Cultural Revolution) have risen to positions of high power across the country. What the author fails to realize is the Wang is also Xi's greatest ally and long-time friend. Wang was Xi's party discipline tsar on the Standing Committee during the 18th Party Congress, and he helped purge many corrupt officials (as well as those that hindered Xi's agenda) across the country. Xi obviously values his wise counsel in addition to his friendship, which is why Wang was given the title of Vice Presidency in the current Party Congress session despite having reached the party's unwritten retirement age rule and had to step down from the Politburo as well as the Central Committee. So no, I can't see Wang Qishan leading any sort of revolt against Xi and stab him in the back.
A little bit of insight into Xi's thinking from a diplomatic capable back in 2009 containing an intelligence brief on him when he was elevated to Central Secretariat in preparation for his rise to the top job in 2012. .
Last edited:
Meh..the article does not provide anything new under the sun that haven't been written before about Pres.Xi, China's supposed insecurities and assertiveness including the pathetic and laughable false assertion that China's core interest in Taiwan is somehow a novel or one that can be negotiated with some magic American deft diplomacy - whatever the f..k that ever means.
The thesisof the article itself always premise on American primacy and zero sum game mentality that permeates all throughout the article. It's not a subtle implication that China wouldn't be this aggressive if it wasn't for this darn Xi Jinping lol..Also, I wasn't aware that losing close to 600,000 of her people; a crating economy are something to be celebrated, exalted for all the world to witness -- classic American hubris.
The article does not provide any meaningful revelation to anyone of us here that follow the China-U.S. rivalry; it's a very predictable American "strategy" that begins to look more like a strategy against Xi Jinping. The strategic calculus America is trying to push in my opinion is regime change i.e. the removal of Xi Jinping at all cost. There must be some influential and sane elements within the National Security Complex that realize how bloody, costly, and destructive to the global economy if the U.S. and China fights in a real war.
Having to replace it's leader that's more western/American leaning within the structure of the CPC is far more preferable and predictable , not to mention profitable vs a chaotic China when the country succumbs or the government collapses. An unstable and chaotic China would be disastrous for every country in the world; think of Syria on steroids. Some American strategists perhaps believe/theorize that China is much more manageable without him (Xi) at the helm which can suggest that there were elements within the CPC who were more than prepared to let China become Russia circa 1991, although am unsure how strong or influential those faction within CPC to have made American fantasy turn into reality. Good riddance to that treasonous Bo Xilai.
The thesisof the article itself always premise on American primacy and zero sum game mentality that permeates all throughout the article. It's not a subtle implication that China wouldn't be this aggressive if it wasn't for this darn Xi Jinping lol..Also, I wasn't aware that losing close to 600,000 of her people; a crating economy are something to be celebrated, exalted for all the world to witness -- classic American hubris.
The article does not provide any meaningful revelation to anyone of us here that follow the China-U.S. rivalry; it's a very predictable American "strategy" that begins to look more like a strategy against Xi Jinping. The strategic calculus America is trying to push in my opinion is regime change i.e. the removal of Xi Jinping at all cost. There must be some influential and sane elements within the National Security Complex that realize how bloody, costly, and destructive to the global economy if the U.S. and China fights in a real war.
Having to replace it's leader that's more western/American leaning within the structure of the CPC is far more preferable and predictable , not to mention profitable vs a chaotic China when the country succumbs or the government collapses. An unstable and chaotic China would be disastrous for every country in the world; think of Syria on steroids. Some American strategists perhaps believe/theorize that China is much more manageable without him (Xi) at the helm which can suggest that there were elements within the CPC who were more than prepared to let China become Russia circa 1991, although am unsure how strong or influential those faction within CPC to have made American fantasy turn into reality. Good riddance to that treasonous Bo Xilai.
Not sure what are you really asking?
The article itself really was not that good. The reporter sees events, but does not understand why it is happening.
= = = = = = =
The CCP view is rather basic at this point, in regards to China and the United States.
One, the United States is in decline. Relatively, and in some ways, absolute too.
Two, the United States has boxed itself into a very stupid geopolitical position, where the choice between the two countries cannot be more stark and one sided.
The US military still wants to build more bases around China, so that the allies lead by the United States can contain China. No allies want to host SRBM in the region, all aimed at China, none, including Australia and Japan, both do not want any of that.
China offers the RCEP, which countries in the region are ratifying to be implemented in a few months.
This is a choice between confrontation such as war, or economic development, which is peace.
In this case, China will start to push against the United States military, much harder. Just to show the region who is the real trouble making war monger, whose reputation is unmatched.
Here is an outsider to the RCEP region, who is not part of the trade pact, ready for war in the very same region.
Who the hell in the region is going to support that?
In other words, China will make people chose in the RCEP, do we want a Chinese peace or an American war.
No one had to chose, but the Americans keep pushing it with their talk of alliances. Therefore, the Chinese push back, hard.
The RCEP will double its economic output in 10-15 years. People here/there part of the RCEP need another American war like they need a hole in the head.
solarz
Brigadier
If the best the CIA can rely on is someone who hasn't seen Xi in 20 years, I would take that with a whole barrel of salt.
Tbf the cable is a little over a decade old and what it describes is fairly accurate having witnessed what Xi has done on the party and anti-corruption front... all be it the report was obviously written with anglo-colored glasses. Still a fascinating read.
What I was trying to put aside the narrative HybridHypothesis said about Xi not being an original thinker... but rather that he is a man of motivation, conviction, and ambitions to modernize the country whilst improving the lives of the Chinese people.