Miscellaneous News

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
1 trillion is close to the Chinese Treasury Bond holdings I think. Is Trump going around Asia asking countries to dump all their USD holdings on investments in the US or something?
 

iewgnem

Senior Member
Registered Member
Looks like Bloomberg is recycling these $1 trillion in investment numbers too.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Time will tell... Let me buy a BYD or Xiaomi EV in the US, and I'll be the first customer.
Considering Chjina wants US to remove national security restrictions on those investments, its probably well beyond cars.
It's funny how MAGA went from "we can't let China buy our farmland" to "we won big by selling our farmland"
 

pmc

Colonel
Registered Member
Sounds like a lot of bs. If I understood correctly, he was talking about intercepting either F-22s of F-35s. These aircrafts don‘t fly in their stealth configuration anywhere near Chinese radar. Of course it would be easier to get a lock on them under these conditions. So the entire story is a nothingburgher.

This happened in Syria also. I would not have taken it seriously until Saudi mainstream media did this comparison again which indicate not much performance difference. when they add this unknown report it is there own information that they want to convey. and the picture in twitter conveying that Su-57 fly ahead of Su-35.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

09.12.2017​

Su-35 intercepts US F-22, forcing it to leave Syrian airspace​


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
May 14, 2024 06:08

Comparison between the American F-22 and the Russian Su-35 fighter​

According to Russian reports, the Su-35 has super cruise capability, similar to the F-22 in maintaining Mach speeds without the need for afterburner
The two aircraft appear to be close, if not quite comparable, in terms of speed and thrust-to-weight ratio, so other variables likely determine the margin of difference between the two aircraft.

 

FriedButter

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(UK) Home secretary ‘very disappointed’ over collapse of China spy trial​

The home secretary has refused to describe China as an “enemy of the UK” as she insisted there was no ministerial interference in the collapse of a Chinese espionage case.

Shabana Mahmood said she was “very disappointed” that the trial of Christopher Berry, 33, and Chris Cash, 30, a former parliamentary researcher, did not go ahead, as she was grilled over whether there was any influence from government advisers over the decision. Both men had denied the allegations.

The Sunday Times reported that Sir Keir Starmer’s national security adviser Jonathan Powell met with other senior Whitehall mandarins, including the foreign office's top civil servant Sir Oliver Robbins, to discuss the case early last month, days before the charges against the pair were dropped on 15 September.

In order to prove the case under the Official Secrets Act, prosecutors would have had to show the defendants were acting for an “enemy” – but Mr Powell reportedly revealed the government’s evidence would be based on the national security strategy, which does not use that term to describe China.

The Sunday Times reported this meant Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser due to give evidence for the prosecution, would be unable to say Beijing was an enemy.

Ms Mahmood said that she was not aware of any Whitehall meeting taking place to discuss the case, and insisted that there was no ministerial involvement, although the Sunday Times report focused on the actions of officials, rather than ministers.

Ms Mahmood told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg: “I don't recognise that reporting about a meeting, I'm not aware of any such meeting taking place.

“It was a decision of the Crown Prosecution Service, as they have made clear themselves, an independent decision on whether to proceed with that prosecution.

“I'm very disappointed that that prosecution has not proceeded. Our understanding is that the evidence that was available to the Crown Prosecution Service when they brought the charges is not materially different to the evidence that they had just before the trial was due to get under way.

“So, I think it's a question for the prosecution service to answer, but as the government, the home office, we very much wanted to see that trial proceed."

Asked if China was an enemy of the UK, she said: "China is a 'challenge', is, I think, the word that I would use."

She said Sir Keir’s government had a "hard-headed, realistic approach" to the Chinese state.

Stephen Parkinson, chief prosecutor in England and Wales, had said the CPS had determined the proceedings in the China spy case had to be stopped because of an "evidential failure".

Shadow national security minister Alicia Kearns, who had previously employed Mr Cash, said: "There are serious questions about constitutional impropriety.

"Starmer must find some backbone and root out the truth. Either his ministers or his most senior advisers acted to spike the CPS' ability to prosecute with his full knowledge, or in contempt of PM - which is it?"

Former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith pointed to areas such as UK universities' reliance on the income from Chinese students to say "we are now uniquely tied to China and its brutal regime".

"We are seen as the soft underbelly of the Western alliance," he said.

"Small wonder Downing Street does China's bidding in shutting down the spy prosecution."

Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick told a fringe event at the Conservative Party conference: “I think China is an enemy of this country.

“I think it’s a real, serious threat to our values, our economic and our national security, and all decisions must flow from that.

“If someone is spying on our Parliament on behalf of China, lock them up, send them to jail for a long time.”
In order to prove the case under the Official Secrets Act, prosecutors would have had to show the defendants were acting for an “enemy” – but Mr Powell reportedly revealed the government’s evidence would be based on the national security strategy, which does not use that term to describe China. … this meant Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser due to give evidence for the prosecution, would be unable to say Beijing was an enemy.
However, Labour ministers told prosecutors they were no longer willing to describe China as an enemy in court, causing the case to collapse in early September.

Anyone can legally spy on Britain as long as Britain doesn’t call you an enemy? Isn’t that an loophole.
 

4Tran

Junior Member
Registered Member
Anyone can legally spy on Britain as long as Britain doesn’t call you an enemy? Isn’t that an loophole.
This rule probably exists to protect Americans. We know that they spy on everyone so it'd be inconvenient if any get publicly revealed in Britain.
 

Maikeru

Major
Registered Member
This rule probably exists to protect Americans. We know that they spy on everyone so it'd be inconvenient if any get publicly revealed in Britain.
Well supposedly part of the Five Eyes agreement is that the members don't spy on each other. Although my own theory is that, because sigint agencies like GCHQ and NSA are generally barred legally barred from internal operations, they do it to each other and trade the output. For example, NSA cannot spy on US citizens, but GCHQ can and does, then gives the results to whoever in US IC wants it. In return, NSA can keep its hands clean and truthfully say it doesn't spy internally. It would return the favour for the UK IC.
 
Top