If this has been a reccuring issue then he needs to be dismissed.
Hopefully his dumb comments go unnoticed in Cental Asian post-Soviet republics.
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Hopefully his dumb comments go unnoticed in Cental Asian post-Soviet republics.
I actually have a lot of contempt for non anglos who curry favour and serve the anglo hegemon, particularly those who would fare better as independant nations. In the case of Germany, Germans like Baerbock and others like her, compromise the German nation and German national interest for the sake of white collectivism.
Given the about turn from Macron to a more independant european geostrategy away from the Anglos, i'd say whatever the Chinese ambassador in france has said should pale in comparison to what he has achieved. Getting a bunch of pipsqueaks like the Balts and Lithuania of all countries! and their knickers in a twist is nothing compared to the splitting of europe's largest economies from the Anglos.
Ambassadors aren't just salespeople for their nations, they're also spies and wheelers and dealers and unlike the americans who give ambassadorships to lobbyists and donors, to become a PRC ambassador you'd have to be well versed in espionage not just diplomacy.
actually, the situation regarding the Ambassador to France has two important details that are not being read correctly.
First of all, the three Baltic republics do not consider themselves to be legally-speaking "ex-Soviet states" because they believe that the USSR illegally occupied them as part of the 1939 Molotov Ribbentrop Pact, and therefore, the Baltic Soviet Republics accession to the USSR was unlawful, and the Baltic states' independence was already confirmed by the Treaty of Brest-Livotsk signed by Lenin and Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1918 and simply resumed to be in force after 1991. So actually, the three Baltic states have no logical reason to even ask China to explain, because their own constitutions already contain the answer. But these three are NATO Sheep so they'll find something to complain about.
The people who actually do have a reason to be alarmed are actually the Ukrainians and the Central Asians. Nobody cares about the Ukrainians any more at the moment, but I can guarantee you that right now, the Central Asian embassies are on damage control, because Kazakhstan especially has been very nervous about the Russians for the last year. That's not a good thing.
First of all, the three Baltic republics do not consider themselves to be legally-speaking "ex-Soviet states" because they believe that the USSR illegally occupied them as part of the 1939 Molotov Ribbentrop Pact, and therefore, the Baltic Soviet Republics accession to the USSR was unlawful, and the Baltic states' independence was already confirmed by the Treaty of Brest-Livotsk signed by Lenin and Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1918 and simply resumed to be in force after 1991. So actually, the three Baltic states have no logical reason to even ask China to explain, because their own constitutions already contain the answer. But these three are NATO Sheep so they'll find something to complain about.
The people who actually do have a reason to be alarmed are actually the Ukrainians and the Central Asians. Nobody cares about the Ukrainians any more at the moment, but I can guarantee you that right now, the Central Asian embassies are on damage control, because Kazakhstan especially has been very nervous about the Russians for the last year. That's not a good thing.
Good leave the EU to rot, less resources to an ungrateful EU the better. Once the USA shatters and the EU is left to fend for itself against a Russia that has no real interest in forgiving and should it come to it, no scruples when it comes to bombing the crap out of Europe, less hope China doesn’t try to help the EU and leave it to fend for itself for a year before any attempt for peace to be made so that Europe can finally suffer for a change for its arrogant attitude. Being a backstabber should be punishable by death and for a nation to do this should end with the death of the offending government that does this along with the crippling of that nations welfare until any trust can be give to that nation again (and even then, only in the absolute smallest amounts)
I think many of us already discussed the tw issue many times before. It’s unlikely there is any attempt of tw takeover before a set dateline. china gov have never officially mention aby date. 2027 is often repeated by US and her vassals. So dun get sucked into their lies. We know for sure China prefers peaceful reunification and time is on their side. What US prefers is a hot war soon before the window to contain China closes. also Ukraine situation is very different from Taiwan. It’s better for Russia to have started it earlier but it’s opposite for China
The only big mistakes was the hesitation during the initial offensive in 2022 and constantly seeking a negotiated resolution until around early fall. There wouldn’t be a Russia if they went all in during 2014 because of Western influence over the Russian financial system.
MIR system (VISA/Master card alternative) and the SPFS (SWIFT alternative) didn’t start heavy development and implementation until 2014. It took until 2016 for MIR to be widely used within Russia and the first SPFS transaction to occur on late 2017. In 2017, MIR was legally required to be used for pension and welfare payments since they used western systems before.
Now imagine the same 2022 sanctions during a 2014 Russian economy except this time their payment system has been completely paralyzed and their financial system is in a full scale crisis since they can’t process transactions.
Additionally, China probably wouldn't be able to/or as willing to help them as today if this happened in 2014. China's relationship with the US was still amicable then so they probably would've stayed neutral. The US's worst mistake in this conflict was pissing off two superpowers that are neighbors and politically aligned.
First of all, judging from China's foreign policy and practice toward Taiwan in recent decades, there is no clear timetable for China's high-level relations with Taiwan.
After 2005, the "Anti-Secession Law" was promulgated, legally ambiguously stipulating the scope of application of armed unification.
Its eighth article stipulates that in the following three situations, it is necessary to initiate war means to solve the problem:
1. Separatist forces have caused Taiwan to separate from China in any name and in any way.
2. A major event occurs that will result in the secession of Taiwan from China.
3. Or the possibility of peaceful reunification is completely lost.
Article 1: There is limited space for interpretation of the law, which can be interpreted as various legal principles of Taiwan independence, including the Taiwan authorities' legislation for Taiwan independence, Taiwan's referendum for Taiwan independence, and other countries' cooperation with the Taiwan authorities to pass domestic legislation to recognize Taiwan independence. It is a passive activation mechanism.
Article 2: Compared with Article 1, the interpretation space is wider, including but not limited to military conflicts, internal coups, and chaos and anarchy caused by large-scale humanitarian crises (earthquakes, famines, nuclear accidents, biochemical accidents, etc.) .
Article 3: Active activation mechanism reserved by the Chinese government. There is more room for interpretation than the second article.
We need to understand what specific situations these three expressions represent. What circumstances can passively activate war? Which situations are different according to the situation and the balance of power, and what flexible interpretation space is there?
Then combine future detailed measures including the "Anti-Secession Law" and other relevant policy bills, and fully consider the possible trends and changes in the military, economic, political, and diplomatic spheres of influence on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, the Pacific Ocean, and even the world in the next few years. Only in this way can we calmly analyze the timetable of military reunification, instead of arbitrarily making judgments based on the balance of military power and unquantifiable changes in public opinion.
We cannot understand the high-level internal decision-making mechanism, and it is difficult to establish a large-scale probability quantitative model for calculation through reliable intelligence like "Patch_Chimera". But we can at least make good use of public constraints and make reasonable conservative reasoning.
According to my understanding, the so-called degree of brainwashing of Taiwanese does not play a large role in decision-making. Taiwanese are actually very realistic people, and they will fall to the side that is beneficial to them at critical moments.
Last edited:
Archive: