Miscellaneous News

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
As @dingyibvs said, Professor Jiang is likely an idealistic Chinese Liberal who immigrated to West and became disillusioned about the West once he learned the hypocrisy and corruption. I don't think he is a spy as most of what he says is public info, what he says is logical and puts it in a structural that makes sense (based solely on his Iran content, unsure about other content). The Freemason quip is a bit suspect though, but I do think the world has some billionaire elite class colluding behind scene? I wouldn't be surprised. He hasn't criticized China in his videos apparently (aside from his 2017 article). Maybe he is now reformed after seeing Trump movement.
It’s easy to see why Prof. Jiang is a reluctant Wumao: the man is a flaming homosexual who remains tightly closeted. Liberalism, at its core, is about liberation—escaping the suffocating grip of rigid traditions, norms, and social expectations.

That’s why, when Obama became the first Black U.S. President, Chinese liberals erupted in contempt for China and its culture, blaming it for everything from lack of innovation to backwardness and unsophistication. They couldn’t stop comparing their own society to the vibrant young community organizer from Chicago’s South Side—the son of an interracial couple who embodied renewal. To many Chinese, America wasn’t just a rival; it was the cultural reset button, the chance to be “born again.”

Yet the “Yes We Can” dream that once symbolized liberation soon collapsed for most Chinese liberals. They discovered that Obama-era America preached tolerance while demanding the erasure of their own cultural identity—and forced them to celebrate every other identity instead. No matter how eloquent, intelligent, or openly gay someone became, the message remained clear: you are still not good enough. This quiet disillusionment had already begun; COVID-19 simply turned it into full-blown rejection. It is precisely this betrayal that keeps people like Prof. Jiang as reluctant-closeted Wumaos to this day.
 

pmc

Colonel
Registered Member
I would push back on this notion that US can do global violence but China cannot. Yes, its easier for US because of their network of bases and allies. Yes they have a bigger fleet of military transport planes. But this is not what defines military power.

Lets say hypothetically speaking China decided to Bomb a country in Africa, can they do it? Can they invade a country in Africa?

They can.


They can utilize their civillian air transport to move troops and weapons. They have a huge air transport industry. Yes, dedicated military air lift is nice to have, but not existential. If needed China can utilize civillian transport. Same thing for ship transport.

Can China transport its troops and planes in a far away region? Yes

Can China pursue a war lasting several months and supply those troops and planes? Yes

What China lacks is not capability, but strategic and political intent. People just cannot imagine China doing this because they have been so laser focused on economics. But its not like China lacks the ability to fight a distant war.

China's political system and strategic presence is just designed for fighting a war like this. Their rhetoric is not there.

But they absolutely have the ability to do a falkland island like long distance war if they wanted to.
Invading Africa with civilian airliners will be disaster waiting to happen. It may or may not apparent but Africa is place of competition between Royal Kingdoms and Europeans. This Wagner command has to be Islamized and whole operation restructure from ground up and there is presumption alot of Africans fighting in Ukraine to get that long training. This is not short term commitment.
That special wheels for harshest climates, reinforced body, faster autonomous cargo handling and complete protection from weapons for latest IL-76. In presence of satellites quick turn around from un paved way become more important.
Transporting choppers this distance An-124 class aircraft.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
It’s easy to see why Prof. Jiang is a reluctant Wumao: the man is a flaming homosexual who remains tightly closeted. Liberalism, at its core, is about liberation—escaping the suffocating grip of rigid traditions, norms, and social expectations.
Liberalism is ultimately about erasing all forms of identity other than at the individual level. Essentially divide and conquer applied at the societal level.
 

Heliox

Junior Member
Registered Member
Let's assume, for example, the USN brings its entire 7th Fleet to blockade the Strait of Malacca. One of China's counters could be surrounding each USN ship with two dozen maritime militia ships in a manner that didn't violate the laws of the sea but complicated USN mission planning and real-time navigation. And just over the horizon would be a Type 055 to ensure only words not missiles were exchanged.

This is just one scenario. China has developed and trained for many. For any analysis to be complete it must address the integrated force.

Per "Laws of the Sea" (COLREGS 1972) this scenario is unlikely to work or rather, unlikely to work with the PLAN-Militia force being in the "right".
  • Privilege (loosely read as "right of way") is pretty much on the side of the larger vessel, sailing in restricted channels.
  • Burden then is on the smaller, powered vessel to steer to avoid collision while the privileged vessel maintains speed and course.
The only way to impede the USN fleet navigation is to ursurp the privilege/burden status by use of (for example) sail boats, tugs towing something or an even larger, deeper draft vessel.

Bottom line, the USN vessels need not open fire at all. They just need to maintain speed and course, the militia boats will get run over and there's nothing the 055 can do other than pick up survivors because;
  • Right is not on it's side
  • You don't start a shooting or emptying your VLS banks over a right-of-way collision in a shipping lane.
 
Last edited:

4Tran

Junior Member
Registered Member
Per "Laws of the Sea" (COLREGS 1972) this scenario is unlikely to work or rather, unlikely to work with the PLAN-Militia force being in the "right".
  • Privilege (loosely read as "right of way") is pretty much on the side of the larger vessel, sailing in restricted channels.
  • Burden then is on the smaller, powered vessel to steer to avoid collision while the privileged vessel maintains speed and course.
The only way to impede the USN fleet navigation is to ursurp the privilege/burden status by use of (for example) sail boats, tugs towing something or an even larger, deeper draft vessel.

Bottom line, the USN vessels need not open fire at all. They just need to maintain speed and course, the militia boats will get run over and there's nothing the 055 can do other than pick up survivors because;
  • Right is not on it's side
  • You don't start a shooting or emptying your VLS banks over a right-of-way collision in a shipping lane.
You'd be technically correct if this were a different scenario. However, enacting a blockade is already an act of war so the 055 would be entirely within its rights to blast away regardless of what the American ships do.

Of course, the scenario is silly to begin with because China wouldn't react so weakly to begin with. Instead of playing games with noncombatant vessels, they'd start by flattening every American base in the First Island Chain. The Seventh Fleet gets to decide whether they prefer to continue the blockade or to give up trying to protect any of their holdings in the Western Pacific.
 

quim

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yes I've heard of theory of keeping Iran in a state of civil war, balkanization, fractured, unable to threaten Israel dominance in the region. I don't think in Iran's entire history it has ever been in perpetual civil war or balkanization. It has mostly been a unified empire or civilization for most of its history, and Israel thinks it can sponsor internal Kurds or minorities for balkanization. That not realistic...
View attachment 170926




If it's so simple to bomb Iran resulting in balkanization, they would have done it decades ago. Why negotiate for so long if it's so simple to topple Iran and keep it weak? This is a Hail Mary desperate move by Israel. Without boots on ground, Iran will still exist to threaten Israel.

Iran has a pretty formidable land army, huge strategic depth, big population, that makes a land conquest a huge nightmare for any potential invader. You need a land invasion to have any durable balkanization or regime change.
But they've already managed to trap Iran in this scheme since the 1979 revolution.

What you all overlook is that what's at stake is the survival of Zionism in global politics.

The day a peaceful Iran emerges, even if it's with a Western puppet government, the right-wing parties allied with Netanyahu's group will be eradicated from Western governments due to the demographic shift of other parties, and Israeli politics will be isolated. The carte blanche will end.

Therefore, it will never be in Israel's interest to leave Iran as a peaceful and internationally accepted country. The plan has always been to have Iran as a controlled and limited opposition, just like ISIS, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, a pariah on a larger scale.

And Iran has been like this since 1979. Khamenei always made deals with the older generation of American Zionist democrats and European social democrats, while the Iranian population has been kept divided between secular and religious factions, and Mossad DOMINATES all state structures. Thus, they only need to keep Iran even more divided and politically disorganized than it has been since 1979, but now making deals with Republicans and western Zionists who will only survive in right-wing groups.

BRICS threatened to integrate Iran to organize and strengthen its position. It was the risk of Iran's integration that forced Israel to demand US intervention. Isolating Iran and exposing BRICS is also in the interest of the Americans.
 
Last edited:
Top