Yeah they already did it in the past and communism is on the rise. They will get alot economically problems if they attack taiwan and they will loos alot of trade then, europe will not tollerate it, so they will think twice before they attack but we saw it in history alot of times, some will risk a larger war for there idelogical goals and risk the consequences.
C2C - UEM - Ultimate-Earth-Map 100% MOD and SVN update compatible by Pit2015
- Thread starter Pit2015
- Start date
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
I'm not sure why anyone thinks this given that despite calling themselves communists, the Chinese really are anything but that now. They have become very capitalist as they rely more and more on privatized industry to interface with the Free Trade deals we've negotiated. The danger of some of these trade deals is how it puts these companies outside of either of our government's jurisdictions to even regulate them. China's desire to grow and expand isn't a communist political motive but rather an imperial Chinese motive. At least that's what it appears to be to me.
Risking a war... I wonder if the world would actually do anything about it if they did. The war would be a risk on all sides given how nuclear the situation could potentially become.
Its called State CapitalismIts called capitalist communist now.Like kim jong un office 39:
That's when billionaires effectively control government?Communistic capitalism.
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
Kleptocracy (technically rule by criminals)That's when billionaires effectively control government?
Oligarchy (rule by the wealthiest)
Last edited:
Maltazard
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2008
- Messages
- 430
Taiwan is home to TSMC which makes something like 80-90% of high end microprocessors today. TSMC has factories a little all over the world, but most of them in Taiwan istelf and mainland China (and that by itself goes to show just how much Taiwan really cared about it's independence, givign China access to the highest end semiconductor manufacturing technologies to save a few bucks on cost of work - then again if over 50% of your import/export relies with China, you're already a Chinese province for all accounts but internal policy).
The thing that is interesting is how this renewed conflict for Taiwan comes along with a global semiconductors shortage. Sure, there is high demand and whatever else they can come up with to justify it, but I think there's something more going on. I think they aren't just building new factories around the world to increase offer of semiconductors, I think they're actually moving the fabs, or at least the machines and the engineers inside the fabs from Taiwan, spreading them around the world, as if preparing for some catastrophe to happen on Taiwan... of course it's never good to have all your eggs in one basket, but they never bothered until now. They must've actually believed that China would do things the way of the US and let corporations do whatever they ever want to without being accountable at all, instead there goes China disappearing its richest man like a piece of cake, and now everyone's scared they might actually believe their propaganda mumbojumbo or, more likely, the supreme leader is actually going for a shot at global domination, one step after the other.
I mean after all, from a Civ player perspective, with the tech gap closed and the massive production and demographic advantage, there are absolutely no reasons why China wouldn't win the game at this stage. The US should've kept them down 50 years ago, someone played its cards wrong here and now it's too late. Like when you're distracted bullying small neighbors and let that large faraway backwards civ develop peacefully for a couple hundreds turns and now they got nukes 'n carriers and you have to throw everything you have to "fix the problem", not that anyone would actually do that these days, but you get the idea.
The thing that is interesting is how this renewed conflict for Taiwan comes along with a global semiconductors shortage. Sure, there is high demand and whatever else they can come up with to justify it, but I think there's something more going on. I think they aren't just building new factories around the world to increase offer of semiconductors, I think they're actually moving the fabs, or at least the machines and the engineers inside the fabs from Taiwan, spreading them around the world, as if preparing for some catastrophe to happen on Taiwan... of course it's never good to have all your eggs in one basket, but they never bothered until now. They must've actually believed that China would do things the way of the US and let corporations do whatever they ever want to without being accountable at all, instead there goes China disappearing its richest man like a piece of cake, and now everyone's scared they might actually believe their propaganda mumbojumbo or, more likely, the supreme leader is actually going for a shot at global domination, one step after the other.
I mean after all, from a Civ player perspective, with the tech gap closed and the massive production and demographic advantage, there are absolutely no reasons why China wouldn't win the game at this stage. The US should've kept them down 50 years ago, someone played its cards wrong here and now it's too late. Like when you're distracted bullying small neighbors and let that large faraway backwards civ develop peacefully for a couple hundreds turns and now they got nukes 'n carriers and you have to throw everything you have to "fix the problem", not that anyone would actually do that these days, but you get the idea.
I played pits scenario few times as china and believe me that I never cared about rest of the world europe or america, except trade deals. World is too big to care and as china I had almost all resources I need.
My stategy as civ player is always conquer small and weak nations around me. I conquered some startegic land or nations only when they have strategic source. When I become too big to fail (2 times size/score) its too late for any other nations. Nobody could stop me even when they use all nuclear arsenal.
TLDR: china is not going to attack taiwain (even if they do, nobody will do anything), china will simply join their territory (in reality its theirs)
New problems otw...
09:23 Uhr
Hongkongs Omikron-Infizierte mit ungewöhnlicher Viruslast
Die zwei bestätigten Omikron-Infizierten in Hongkong weisen offenbar eine sehr schnell ansteigende Viruslast auf. Die PCR-Tests der zwei Männer, die wenige Tage zuvor noch negativ ausfielen, enthielten einen Ct-Wert von 18 und 19. "Das ist wahnsinnig hoch, insbesondere wenn man bedenkt, dass die zwei bei den letzten PCR-Tests noch negativ waren", schreibt der Epidemiologe Eric Feigl-Ding, der lange Zeit an der Universität Harvard forschte.
Es sehe so aus, als ob die Variante dem Impfschutz tatsächlich entgehen könnte, so Feigl-Ding weiter. Laut Angaben der Hongkonger Regierung wurde die Omikron-Variante des Coronavirus von einem Reisenden aus Südafrika eingeschleppt, der sich seit seiner Ankunft am 11. November in einem Quarantäne-Hotel befand. Am 13. November wurde er dann positiv getestet.
Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass der Mann trotz strenger Isolation einen 62-Jährigen im gegenüberliegenden Zimmer des Quarantäne-Hotels angesteckt hat. Dieser wurde am 18. November während seines vierten PCR-Tests positiv getestet. In beiden Fällen wurde bei einer späteren Genomsequenzierung deutlich, dass sie sich mit der Omikron-Variante des Coronavirus infiziert hatten.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
9:23 am Hong Kong's Omikron infected people with an unusual viral load The two confirmed Omikron infected people in Hong Kong apparently have a very rapidly increasing viral load. The PCR tests of the two men, who were negative a few days earlier, had a Ct value of 18 and 19. "That is incredibly high, especially when you consider that the two were still negative in the last PCR tests" writes the epidemiologist Eric Feigl-Ding, who did research at Harvard University for a long time. It looks as if the variant could actually escape vaccination protection, Feigl-Ding continued. According to the Hong Kong government, the Omicron variant of the coronavirus was brought in by a traveler from South Africa who had been in a quarantine hotel since arriving on November 11. Then on November 13th he tested positive. It is assumed that the man infected a 62-year-old in the opposite room of the quarantine hotel, despite strict isolation. This tested positive on November 18th during its fourth PCR test. In both cases, later genome sequencing made it clear that they had been infected with the omicron variant of the coronavirus.
09:23 Uhr
Hongkongs Omikron-Infizierte mit ungewöhnlicher Viruslast
Die zwei bestätigten Omikron-Infizierten in Hongkong weisen offenbar eine sehr schnell ansteigende Viruslast auf. Die PCR-Tests der zwei Männer, die wenige Tage zuvor noch negativ ausfielen, enthielten einen Ct-Wert von 18 und 19. "Das ist wahnsinnig hoch, insbesondere wenn man bedenkt, dass die zwei bei den letzten PCR-Tests noch negativ waren", schreibt der Epidemiologe Eric Feigl-Ding, der lange Zeit an der Universität Harvard forschte.
Es sehe so aus, als ob die Variante dem Impfschutz tatsächlich entgehen könnte, so Feigl-Ding weiter. Laut Angaben der Hongkonger Regierung wurde die Omikron-Variante des Coronavirus von einem Reisenden aus Südafrika eingeschleppt, der sich seit seiner Ankunft am 11. November in einem Quarantäne-Hotel befand. Am 13. November wurde er dann positiv getestet.
Es wird davon ausgegangen, dass der Mann trotz strenger Isolation einen 62-Jährigen im gegenüberliegenden Zimmer des Quarantäne-Hotels angesteckt hat. Dieser wurde am 18. November während seines vierten PCR-Tests positiv getestet. In beiden Fällen wurde bei einer späteren Genomsequenzierung deutlich, dass sie sich mit der Omikron-Variante des Coronavirus infiziert hatten.
ENGLISH TRANSLATION:
9:23 am Hong Kong's Omikron infected people with an unusual viral load The two confirmed Omikron infected people in Hong Kong apparently have a very rapidly increasing viral load. The PCR tests of the two men, who were negative a few days earlier, had a Ct value of 18 and 19. "That is incredibly high, especially when you consider that the two were still negative in the last PCR tests" writes the epidemiologist Eric Feigl-Ding, who did research at Harvard University for a long time. It looks as if the variant could actually escape vaccination protection, Feigl-Ding continued. According to the Hong Kong government, the Omicron variant of the coronavirus was brought in by a traveler from South Africa who had been in a quarantine hotel since arriving on November 11. Then on November 13th he tested positive. It is assumed that the man infected a 62-year-old in the opposite room of the quarantine hotel, despite strict isolation. This tested positive on November 18th during its fourth PCR test. In both cases, later genome sequencing made it clear that they had been infected with the omicron variant of the coronavirus.
Last edited:
Omikron varriant so far mild symptoms reported, has to be monitored how it will develop in the next days, stock markets may maybe calm down for first a bit.
But only 6% older ppl in south africa, has to be monitored how it will hit.
Large companys like Samsung and Toshiba and others started to move there factories out of cina and building new semiconductor manufacturing plants in other countries. No one moved out of taiwan i think.
World will not watch china to take taiwan this time also because of 23 million ppl dont want to join and be part of china, taiwan is not theirs otherwise they will not need force.
They can try to make it theirs. But that may bring them severe consequences.
Maybe Hong Kong will revolt then?!?
New Report:
But only 6% older ppl in south africa, has to be monitored how it will hit.
Large companys like Samsung and Toshiba and others started to move there factories out of cina and building new semiconductor manufacturing plants in other countries. No one moved out of taiwan i think.
World will not watch china to take taiwan this time also because of 23 million ppl dont want to join and be part of china, taiwan is not theirs otherwise they will not need force.
They can try to make it theirs.
But that may bring them severe consequences.Maybe Hong Kong will revolt then?!?
New Report:
Last edited:
Russia would be brain dead if it didn't sharpen their defensive readiness when faced with the extreme aggression of the western nations.
NATO's military budget is 20 times bigger than Russia's, if we exclude the US, NATO still has 5 times bigger military budget than Russia.
Our rhetoric is quite insistent on continued military build up in Europe.
Russia has 6-10 military bases abroad, the US and its allies, mostly the US though, has around 1000....
Western aggression, where should I start...
Experimenting with two nuclear weapons on Japan even though it was clear the war was won at the time, the korea War, Vietnam War, Gulf wars, bombing of Serbia based on a lie, agreeing to Kosovo being a autonomous part of Serbia in the peace-deal and then breaking that agreement afterwards, invasion of Afghanistan without a rational reason, invasion of Iraq based on a lie, bombing of Libya based on a lie (this destabilized the entire African continent by giving Jihadists a safe haven there too), a committed support to the extremists who took to arms in Syria, Turkish occupation of northern Syria, American presence there, American betrayal of the Kurds when Turkey wanted to murder some Kurds, deadly American bombing in 2019 that killed about 70 Syrian women and children.... Not to mention all the atrocities the US does in latin America, a whole chapter in itself; supporting coups, committing assassinations, funding warlords and dictators, and so on. Western aggression towards Iran is another topic of note, claiming Iran to be supporters of global terrorism, name one shia group of note that belongs to the global terrorist category, it should be mentioned that Shia's are one of the main victims of Sunni jihad.
Assad, Saddam and Ghadaffi were all inside the western sphere of influence, extended friends of the west one could say, up until our aggression. They all lead secular regimes although at least two of them were personally very religious, but their common mistake was to meddle with something described as Islamic socialisms, nationalizing too many industries for the west to swallow. The US created Taliban (also Al Qaeda) when opposing the secular regime that the soviet supported in Afghanistan, that regime's mistake was also socialism one could say. Let's not forget how Israel yearly sends missiles into its neighboring countries, their war against Lebanon mainly because Lebanon housed hundreds of thousands of Palestine refugees (equates to them supporting terrorism I guess).
Almost forgot to mention the western support of the Saudi Arabian mercenary war on Yemeni farmers, mostly US support though.
Georgia attacked Russia gambling on it being the right move to get NATO membership pronto, the gamble failed because NATO somehow didn't want a war with Russia just to stop two Georgian regions from gaining the autonomy they wanted. Ukraine is suing for NATO membership in blatant disregard of the buffer state concept that's been in place since the dissolution of the soviet union. Azerbaijan, another buffer state, recently waged war against Armenia with Turkish support, is another example of western aggression that worries Russia.
The US knows only one kind of diplomacy, and it is based on threats and uncompromising ultimatums, and their only response to failed diplomacy is aggression, if you're not our b*tch, then you're an "evildoer". A recurring precondition demand for negotiations that the west presents is "lay down your arms and accept defeat", and when the demand is not met we accuse the other side of not being willing to even negotiate. What kind of negotiation is possible or even needed if the other side has capitulated before the negotiations, what power does the other side hold in that negotiation? This occurred during the east Ukrainian civil disobedience and again in the following civil war, it occurred in the Syrian civil war and in the Libyan civil war, it is also similar to the demand made against Cuba, Venezuela and so on as a condition for better relationship with the US, accept all our demands "kind-of-thing" and we might allow you into the room.
So considering how the ultra aggressive, imperialistic, US, has been increasing its military presence in Europe on the Russian border lately, new missile sites, the anti missile shield, boots on the ground, along with NATO's general arms build-up, it is only reasonable that Russia has a strong and even paranoid military presence on their borders to NATO, or whatever proxy that may be (and Ukraine is starting to look de facto like NATO), i.e. unstable buffer states with strong leanings to the west.
Russia does not want borders against NATO, they desperately want Ukraine to be a stable and predictable buffer state, an invasion with the intent of occupation is unthinkable. However, it could be thinkable that if Kiev breaks the cease fire and commit a full on invasion of the separatist controlled east, Russia might respond militarily (similarly to how they did in Georgia) and be able to justify it enough ("To stop Kiev from committing a massacre against its own people" could be a valid rhetoric) for NATO to not get involved in it (because its a clusterf*ck that would have been initiated by Kiev).
Some of what I said here is of course debatable, especially the semantics of it, it lack some nuance, but this is partly the dominant perspective of the non-western world population today, so refusing to consider this narrative as something real would be a dangerous mistake of ignorance.
NATO's military budget is 20 times bigger than Russia's, if we exclude the US, NATO still has 5 times bigger military budget than Russia.
Our rhetoric is quite insistent on continued military build up in Europe.
Russia has 6-10 military bases abroad, the US and its allies, mostly the US though, has around 1000....
Western aggression, where should I start...
Experimenting with two nuclear weapons on Japan even though it was clear the war was won at the time, the korea War, Vietnam War, Gulf wars, bombing of Serbia based on a lie, agreeing to Kosovo being a autonomous part of Serbia in the peace-deal and then breaking that agreement afterwards, invasion of Afghanistan without a rational reason, invasion of Iraq based on a lie, bombing of Libya based on a lie (this destabilized the entire African continent by giving Jihadists a safe haven there too), a committed support to the extremists who took to arms in Syria, Turkish occupation of northern Syria, American presence there, American betrayal of the Kurds when Turkey wanted to murder some Kurds, deadly American bombing in 2019 that killed about 70 Syrian women and children.... Not to mention all the atrocities the US does in latin America, a whole chapter in itself; supporting coups, committing assassinations, funding warlords and dictators, and so on. Western aggression towards Iran is another topic of note, claiming Iran to be supporters of global terrorism, name one shia group of note that belongs to the global terrorist category, it should be mentioned that Shia's are one of the main victims of Sunni jihad.
Assad, Saddam and Ghadaffi were all inside the western sphere of influence, extended friends of the west one could say, up until our aggression. They all lead secular regimes although at least two of them were personally very religious, but their common mistake was to meddle with something described as Islamic socialisms, nationalizing too many industries for the west to swallow. The US created Taliban (also Al Qaeda) when opposing the secular regime that the soviet supported in Afghanistan, that regime's mistake was also socialism one could say. Let's not forget how Israel yearly sends missiles into its neighboring countries, their war against Lebanon mainly because Lebanon housed hundreds of thousands of Palestine refugees (equates to them supporting terrorism I guess).
Almost forgot to mention the western support of the Saudi Arabian mercenary war on Yemeni farmers, mostly US support though.
Georgia attacked Russia gambling on it being the right move to get NATO membership pronto, the gamble failed because NATO somehow didn't want a war with Russia just to stop two Georgian regions from gaining the autonomy they wanted. Ukraine is suing for NATO membership in blatant disregard of the buffer state concept that's been in place since the dissolution of the soviet union. Azerbaijan, another buffer state, recently waged war against Armenia with Turkish support, is another example of western aggression that worries Russia.
The US knows only one kind of diplomacy, and it is based on threats and uncompromising ultimatums, and their only response to failed diplomacy is aggression, if you're not our b*tch, then you're an "evildoer". A recurring precondition demand for negotiations that the west presents is "lay down your arms and accept defeat", and when the demand is not met we accuse the other side of not being willing to even negotiate. What kind of negotiation is possible or even needed if the other side has capitulated before the negotiations, what power does the other side hold in that negotiation? This occurred during the east Ukrainian civil disobedience and again in the following civil war, it occurred in the Syrian civil war and in the Libyan civil war, it is also similar to the demand made against Cuba, Venezuela and so on as a condition for better relationship with the US, accept all our demands "kind-of-thing" and we might allow you into the room.
So considering how the ultra aggressive, imperialistic, US, has been increasing its military presence in Europe on the Russian border lately, new missile sites, the anti missile shield, boots on the ground, along with NATO's general arms build-up, it is only reasonable that Russia has a strong and even paranoid military presence on their borders to NATO, or whatever proxy that may be (and Ukraine is starting to look de facto like NATO), i.e. unstable buffer states with strong leanings to the west.
Russia does not want borders against NATO, they desperately want Ukraine to be a stable and predictable buffer state, an invasion with the intent of occupation is unthinkable. However, it could be thinkable that if Kiev breaks the cease fire and commit a full on invasion of the separatist controlled east, Russia might respond militarily (similarly to how they did in Georgia) and be able to justify it enough ("To stop Kiev from committing a massacre against its own people" could be a valid rhetoric) for NATO to not get involved in it (because its a clusterf*ck that would have been initiated by Kiev).
Some of what I said here is of course debatable, especially the semantics of it, it lack some nuance, but this is partly the dominant perspective of the non-western world population today, so refusing to consider this narrative as something real would be a dangerous mistake of ignorance.
Last edited:
Can you blame the Ukraine? After Russia conquered the Crimea in violation of any right - international law, the Ukrainian constitution and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian–Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet - and started to support (arguably with troops) the separatists in the Eastern part of the Ukraine (I wonder what would have happened if an external power had supported e.g. the Chechnyans in the 90s?), the Ukraine has to consider Russia as a hostile power.
The Crimea conquest itself cannot be justified, considering that it was neither legal (see above) nor legitimate (the so-called referendum was not about leaving the Ukraine, but only about joining Russia). On top of that, when the Russians say that they had had the Crimea ever since the 1780s, it has to be said that Russia in the modern sense did not exist before 1917. The Russian Empire at this time was the predecessor of the entire Soviet Union, plus several territories (like Poland and Finland) that did not become a part of it or (in case of the Baltic countries) only "joined" later. The Crimea certainly was part of the Russian Empire, but so was the Ukraine itself. What does that have to do with the Russian Federation of today?
The Crimea conquest itself cannot be justified, considering that it was neither legal (see above) nor legitimate (the so-called referendum was not about leaving the Ukraine, but only about joining Russia). On top of that, when the Russians say that they had had the Crimea ever since the 1780s, it has to be said that Russia in the modern sense did not exist before 1917. The Russian Empire at this time was the predecessor of the entire Soviet Union, plus several territories (like Poland and Finland) that did not become a part of it or (in case of the Baltic countries) only "joined" later. The Crimea certainly was part of the Russian Empire, but so was the Ukraine itself. What does that have to do with the Russian Federation of today?
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
While true, as a Civ player, it becomes pretty clear that in a late game nuclear potential situation, you either do this or you conquer it all. Since we'd rather not have to directly manage everything and at least somewhat respect the sovereignty of nations despite the terror of a half-secured globe with the potential for hidden nuclear armament, this has been the alternative answer - and we have to admit so far it's worked to keep the globe more stable than nearly all history prior to WWII. Is it right that we're this way? Probably not no. But it's worked, so far, for now, to keep us all from going up in flames. I'm not looking forward to the failure of this strategy, which still seems inevitable without a one world government.
Blame Ukraina? You mean for suing for NATO membership?
Ukraine has practically been suing for NATO membership since the western supported coup, which happened before the civil war and before Russia recovered crimea.
Or do you mean for their attempt to demote the status of the Russian language and culture in Ukraine? That too started at the coup, and was the main reason for the civil war breaking out.
Ukraine having bad relations with Russia, considering them a hostile power; doesn't really make an unprovoked Russian invasion likely though, which is all I'm saying.
As long as Ukraine is unstable, it will not become a NATO country, and this thesis is probably the basis for Russia's decision-making regarding Ukraine.
That, and it's only natural for them to defend the population of Russian culture in the neighboring countries of Russia when they face grave injustice.
Last edited:
I would not blame this on ignorance. I believe the Western media is at fault here. The news today seems all about emotion (often fear or sadness) instead of scientific or statistical facts, but underneath is a hidden guidance by the people in power (the invisible elite controlling the government). Western (social) media today is all about keeping people ignorant and keeping people busy (I sound like a conspiracy theorist now, I know, sorry).
Thunderbrd
C2C War Dog
True though. And it doesn't matter if it's a right or left leaning media or promising to be impartial. It's why nobody on any side trusts anything they hear from the opposing side and if they're smart enough they keep in mind there's a lot they aren't being told on their side either.
