Miscellaneous News

hashtagpls

hashtagpls

Senior Member
Registered Member
bajingan said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The author of this body of work has requested to remain anonymous, and the Atlantic Council granted this request."

Haha looks like China sanctions on pompeo already has bring out the fear of god out of these China hawks lol
Click to expand...
So a cowardly anglo wants to propose targeting Xi's family and the families of the politburo, whilst staying anonymous.

Do they really want to play this game?

Death squads might work in third world countries in latin america, too poor to target the Beltway Elites, but if US politicians want to play this game- and to a degree they have by kidnapping Meng- then they can expect real twisted shit. Shit like having pieces of their kids being mailed to them, week by week.
 
S

Skywatcher

Captain
bajingan said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"The author of this body of work has requested to remain anonymous, and the Atlantic Council granted this request."

Haha looks like China sanctions on pompeo already has bring out the fear of god out of these China hawks lol
Click to expand...
Frankly, I hope he (or she) wrote the entire thing, instead of wasting some aide or intern's time.

Some elements are just bizarrely insane, such as "these matters (the redlines) will not be a matter of public debate".

The United States’ list of red lines should be short, focused, and enforceable. China’s tactic for many years has been to blur the red lines that might otherwise lead to open confrontation with the United States too early for Beijing’s liking. For this reason, China does not use its declared strategy to indicate real shifts in its behavior, knowing that doing so is more likely to generate a reaction in US politics than if it keeps quiet. Beijing has learned over many decades that most political debate in Washington occurs around public political rhetoric rather than covert policy behavior. China also has deployed multiple techniques to ensure plausible deniability for what its party-state apparatus is doing around the world, using softer assets rather than hard military assets to assert its interests wherever possible (such as China’s extensive use of its fishing fleet, coast guard vessels, and other craft, rather than naval vessels, in the South China Sea).

Therefore, the United States must be very clear about which Chinese actions it will seek to deter and, should deterrence fail, will prompt direct US intervention. These should be unambiguously communicated to Beijing through high-level diplomatic channels so that China is placed on notice. This communication should only be made public if and when deterrence has failed and US retaliatory action has been initiated. This will be necessary to secure US public opinion and allied buy-in for the US response.

This list of red lines should include these elements:



  • any nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons action by China against the United States or its allies, or by North Korea where China has failed to take decisive action to prevent any such North Korean action
  • any Chinese military attack against Taiwan or its offshore islands, including an economic blockade or major cyberattack against Taiwanese public infrastructure and institutions
  • any Chinese attack against Japanese forces in their defense of Japanese sovereignty over the Senkaku Islands and their surrounding EEZ in the East China Sea
  • any major Chinese hostile action in the South China Sea to further reclaim and militarize islands, to deploy force against other claimant states, or to prevent full freedom of navigation operations by the United States and allied maritime forces
  • any Chinese attack against the sovereign territory or military assets of US treaty allies

The assets that should be deployed by the United States (and where appropriate, its allies) in support of each of these red lines will vary. These matters should not be advanced in public debate. The policy logic, however, remains clear: in each case, it is to signal the significance of these red lines to Xi’s administration and to deter, and if necessary defeat, any Chinese actions that violate them. China is likely to be stunned by this level of strategic clarity. It has grown accustomed to a United States that has become unwilling to confront it or that does so only episodically and temporarily. Inevitably, China will probe how serious the United States will be in the execution of this new strategy—by identifying the weakest link in the chain. The United States must be prepared for this probing. However, it is important to remember that most of these red lines play directly into current internal debates within the Chinese system on whether Xi has already pushed the United States too far.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
So I guess Mr. X (or Ms. X, stupidity does not distinguish between gender) wants to abolish the democratic process?
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
Yawn, who cares what someone too cowardly to stand by their own words rants or raves about?

Didn’t bother to read all of it as it just looked like a giant waste of time, but from the bits I did skim, it was pretty clear that the author is living either 30 years in the past, or some parallel universe fantasy land.

The real reason the US has continuously allowed its established positions to be pushed back by China is not due to clever salami slicing trickery by Beijing, but rather as a result of titanic shifts in the real, hard power balance between China and America. Thus America could no longer defend positions it once held as unassailable, so it had no other option but quietly back down when China pressed them on the issue.

In a way, this is actually a sign of past American strategic foresight, that even during the peak of its power, American planners and strategies still had the maturity and presence of mind to build in strategic ambiguity that allows America to back down without appear to be in retreat.

At the end of the day, nation states should only draw red lines on matters that it is willing and able to go to war over irrespective of the costs. Taiwan is such an issue for China, whereby it is almost impossible to think of any remotely realistic scenario where Taiwan could declare formal independence and not trigger and immediate Chinese invasion.

If you declare a red line over an issue you are manifestly not going to go all in on, then a near-peer adversary with sufficient balls and will can force you to make humiliating climb downs over, as Obama found to his cost with the Russians.

For America to declare any of the red lines as outlined in that report is to invite total disaster, as doing so will hand the strategic initiative entirely to China, whereby China can pick and choose precisely the time and place to fight America to maximise its advantage.
 
W

weig2000

Captain
LesAdieux said:
Kennan was no fucking good either, he didn't get anything right, was a pariah in the state department. lots people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, including Hitler. it was destroyed by Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
Click to expand...

Well, Kennan's main insight was supposedly that he saw intrinsic contradictions and weakness in Soviet system and therefore advocated more patient and confident containment strategy when there was this red scare permeated the western countries. Whether Kennan was purely lucky or had real foresight, containment strategy was a better one compared to going into a hot war with Soviet Union, considering the tense situation in the early days of the Cold War.

This anonymous author, though, has no real insight whatsoever in China's strength and weakness vis-a-vis the US's. His/her whole premise for his/her recommendations can be boiled down to the assertion that China is extremely cautious about military conflcit with the US. His/her recommendations therefore largely amount to throwing a lot of delusional and desperate red lines, which can easily trigger serious military conflicts.
 
Last edited:
S

Skywatcher

Captain
weig2000 said:
Well, Kennan's main insight was supposedly that he saw intrinsic contradictions and weakness in Soviet system and therefore advocated more patient and confident containment strategy when there was this red scare permeated the western countries. Whether Kennan was purely lucky or had real foresight, containment strategy was a better one compared to going into a hot war with Soviet Union, considering the tense situation in the early days of the Cold War.

This anonymous author, though, has no real insight whatsoever in China's strength and weakness vis-a-vis the US's. His/her whole premise for his/her recommendations can be boiled down to the assertion that China is extremely cautious about military conflcit with the US. His/her recommendations therefore largely amount to throwing a lot of delusional and desperate red lines, which can easily trigger serious military conflicts.
Click to expand...
What especially amazed me (and stood out from all the other mistakes and contradictions) was the authorial intent to effectively suppress public debate in American over foreign policy.

At that point, why not go full hog and declare that fuhrerprinzip should be included into the next National Defense Strategy, and in all future National Defense Authorization Acts?
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I was watching a news cable show this morning and the Republican host was railing against Facebook for posting fake news that has undermined the US overall. Ironic where everything US politicians now fear about Facebook they want that happening in China where the US does everything they accuse Facebook and the Russians of doing to the US. Do you think these people are looking out for what's best for everyone? To the least they're stupid idiots blindly believing everything the US does is good. To the worst they're evil because hypocrites have contradictory thoughts which by nature is motivated by pure selfishness and have no concern for anyone else.

They don't even think. Facebook and Google were the darlings of American genius not too long ago because they didn't think of the implications hence why China didn't let them in. And everything they do has to be good for everyone else... Remember how the US and Great Britain were number one and two at handling outbreaks in the entire world. They thumb their noses at others for not following what they would do. Then they turned out to be the worse out of all developed countries in handling COVID-19... They wouldn't show an ounce of regret if the world did followed them over a cliff doing it their way because when it comes down to it, they would relish how much power it said they have over others that everyone else did it despite knowing it was against their best interests just because they said so...
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
hashtagpls said:
So a cowardly anglo wants to propose targeting Xi's family and the families of the politburo, whilst staying anonymous.

Do they really want to play this game?

Death squads might work in third world countries in latin america, too poor to target the Beltway Elites, but if US politicians want to play this game- and to a degree they have by kidnapping Meng- then they can expect real twisted shit. Shit like having pieces of their kids being mailed to them, week by week.
Click to expand...

This is one of the biggest analytical flaws.

The Chinese leadership is pretty much immune to foreign influence because their assets and families have been withdrawn inside China.

Plus it lists the following Xi Jinping goals below.
But these all make sense from a national perspective across the Politburo, the broader Communist Party, along with big business in China.
So it doesn't matter who is in charge, because they would all have the same goal of a prosperous hi-tech China, which would be far larger than the USA.

  • leapfrog the United States as a technological power and thereby displace it as the world’s dominant economic power
  • undermine US dominance of the global financial system and the status of the US dollar as the global reserve currency
  • achieve military preponderance sufficient to deter the United States and its allies from intervention in any conflict over Taiwan, the South China Sea, or the East China Sea
  • diminish the credibility of US power and influence sufficiently to cause those states currently inclined to “balance” against China to instead join the bandwagon with China
  • deepen and sustain China’s relationship with its neighbor and most valuable strategic partner, Russia, in order to head off Western pressure
  • consolidate the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) into a geopolitical and geoeconomic bloc in support of China’s policy ambitions, forming the foundation for a future Sinocentric global order
  • use China’s growing influence within international institutions to delegitimize and overturn initiatives, standards, and norms perceived as hostile to China’s interests—particularly on human rights and international maritime law—while advancing a new, hierarchical, authoritarian conception of international order under Xi’s deliberately amorphous concept of a “community of common destiny for all mankind”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top