General News Regarding China & Hong Kong

[REDY]

Here people even hate talking bad about china. Current CP Zeman said that we should learn from Chinese how to stabilise society and when was Chinese security beating Czech protesters and policemen were taking out posters for free Tibet, no words from him. America would be taken as villain for escalation.

 

[abradley]

How does this substantiate the claim that dissidents are being kidnapped to conduct live organ transplants?

It feels like the logic here is, i) the PRC is bad, ii) kidnapping dissidents to harvest their organs while they are still alive is bad, iii) therefore, the PRC is kidnapping dissidents to harvest their organs while they are still alive. There's nothing to substantiate it, but it feels right, it feels like the sort of cartoonish supervillainy we have decided the PRC are capable of, and it is self-evidently true that if our perceived enemies are capable of something, they most absolutely being doing exactly that thing all of the time, insert artist's rendering of a vicious German soldier bayoneting an innocent Belgian nun.

My post was in reply to your:
"
Traitorfish said: ↑
{Snip}
The Cultural Revolution was a period of civil war and radicalisation that the country has to be amped up to, not some state of nature into which it might relapse. Why would we expect it to reoccur?"

Nothing to do with organ harvesting.

 

[innonimatu]

I agree that nuclear weapons are what makes a big war in this case unlikely. Neither side will want to escalate into that, but we have a precedent for not using nuclear weapons there, even while aging a war that killed millions: the korean war.

This is not just a "tariff war". The tariff war, the reduction of trade and interdependence between China and the US, is the first step the path to being able to wage a real war. The ability to do so is a tool for diplomatic pressure.

Russia has its own potential problems with China, the chinese keep saying that the russian annexation of the Vladivostok area was an "unequal treaty". It is false, the (han) chinese empire does not have a better historic claim to the area, just as they do not have a valid historic claim to Formosa/Taiwan. I'm sure that a russian government would not like to see China crushed or thrown into civil war, but I think they'd be happy to see it taken down a few notches. Fail to achieve its aim of becoming the east asian hegemon, a world "superpower".

Trump's international strategy to stop China's rise was sound: isolate China before it becomes too powerful by either bribing or pressuring all other countries to cut trade and cooperation with them. It was likely to succeed: forced to choose people will rather deal with the devil they know than with a new unknown one. And China had bad blood with several of its neighbors. Where he failed was in the national strategy. One of the problems was outside his control: the democrats prevented an understanding with Russia through their "russiagate" invention, creating a climate that instead threw the russians into an alliance with the chinese and made them thoroughly skeptical of trusting any agreement with the US. One is totally his fault, the US government is failing to do a number of things necessary to rebuild industrial production capacity, starting with de-financializing the economy. Education can't be a business for finance. Health care is a public service necessary for business to prosper, not a profit industry in itself. Corporations must reinvest profits, not take additional loans to finance stock buybacks. Etc. Trump believes in unregulated capitalism, which is even more of a national train-wreck that the regulated capitalism that had already started exporting itself out of the country at least since Nixon's time.

While I'm not happy with any one country as hegemon, I am surprised at how badly the current one mismanaged and wasted away its position. I have this morbid fascination with the international power games and the circumstantial failures that happen there.

 

[Zelig]

Trump's international strategy to stop China's rise was sound: isolate China before it becomes too powerful by either bribing or pressuring all other countries to cut trade and cooperation with them.

I guess that's disregarding where he withdrew from a trade agreement comprising 40% of world GDP that was designed as a counter to Chinese economic influence.

 

[Estebonrober]

I guess that's disregarding where he withdrew from a trade agreement comprising 40% of world GDP that was designed as a counter to Chinese economic influence.

That would be counter to Inno's philosphy of total isolation on a neighborhood level though.

TPP is the one thing I still disagree with the American body politic completely. I'd rather have ™ protections and markets for our farmers, then trying to futility prop up manufacturing here that would only be almost totally automated here anyways.

 

[Zelig]

I mean, I think the TPP was bad, but thinking that Trump has any kind of actual strategy rather than simply having random outbursts is a mistake.

 

[Yeekim]

If we had crazy nationalist in power, he would probably seize Baltic States next week after war started.

... whereas your current leadership would take at least a month to properly prepare first, right?

 

[Yeekim]

The claim is that this is a single, deliberate process, from start to finish; that the Chinese state kidnaps Falun Gong practitioners for the explicit purpose of breaking them down for spare parts. This claim is unsubstantiated, and is always sourced back to extremely dubious sources. (Specifically, and I feel may be overlooking this, to a messianic wizard-cult.)

Since the only difference between those two scenarios lies in the underlying motivation of the Chinese state, for any observer there would be nothing to distinguish them. There can also exist no proof, short of public admission from the authorities.
But yes, I get that this is the distinction you're adamant about making. I just don't get why.
I can't imagine that a dissident who hears a knock at the door would find much solace in knowing that his organs are just a nice bonus for his captors, rather than their primary motivation...

 

[Farm Boy]

The wizard and the PRC agree: all this harmony isn't free. There are some differences of opinion on who is supposed to pay.

 

[red_elk]

... whereas your current leadership would take at least a month to properly prepare first, right?

No, the only realistic scenario where Russia invades Baltic States while Putin is in power, is a war between Russia and NATO.

 

[Yeekim]

No, the only realistic scenario where Russia invades Baltic States while Putin is in power, is a war between Russia and NATO.

Mind that in case of a US-China war, we have no idea what shape NATO is even in.
But I agree with the implication that NATO (and to an extent, EU membership) is presently the one thing keeping Russia away from Baltic states.

 

[red_elk]

Mind that in case of a US-China war, we have no idea what shape NATO is even in.
But I agree with the implication that NATO (and to an extent, EU membership) is presently the one thing keeping Russia away from Baltic states.

No, I don't think so. I believe they aren't worth invasion even if NATO disappeared and US wouldn't care. For a number of reasons, but the main one is that majority of their population would be against it.

I was talking about wartime scenario, which is different. A couple of months ago I watched on youtube a lecture of US military analysts about Russian military and nuclear strategy. They mentioned Baltic States as a problematic place, because Russia has overwhelming conventional advantage in that area and active NATO countermeasures would be extremely risky because of possible escalation to nuclear war. In other words, NATO is unable to just kick Russia out of there without going to full-scale war. One question from audience was why Russia would invade them in the first place. And the answer was Russia has no interest in invading them. But in case of conflict with NATO elsewhere, in Ukraine, Syria or wherever else, which escalates to shooting war, Russia may invade them. Simply because it can. From Russia's perspective, Baltic States is NATO weakest spot and in case if it absolutely needed to hit NATO somewhere, Baltic States would be one of the first candidates.

 

[Moriarte]

Mind that in case of a US-China war, we have no idea what shape NATO is even in.
But I agree with the implication that NATO (and to an extent, EU membership) is presently the one thing keeping Russia away from Baltic states.

Why risk aggravation with already hostile economies and their governments by starting a shooting war in the Baltic states with the aim of what exactly - capturing Berlin again?!? ..when you can slowly, safely and reliably make economic ties to the 2-3nd strongest economy in the world with their "infinitely" deep markets, consumers. It's not like Russia is short on territory. It has all it needs, so the correct course of action would be to improve economy in concert with natural ally the West conveniently created for Russia. And not pew-pew with the Estonians risking a global diplomatic shutdown over a port, which is easily replaceable.

this is of course bad news for nato budget committee, but it is what it is..

 

[innonimatu]

That would be counter to Inno's philosphy of total isolation on a neighborhood level though.

TPP is the one thing I still disagree with the American body politic completely. I'd rather have ™ protections and markets for our farmers, then trying to futility prop up manufacturing here that would only be almost totally automated here anyways.

The TPP was completely misdesigned, unable to achieve even that goal, for one very simple reason: China would eventually get into it. All the asian members and even some of the american ones would press for that, and would do so collectively inside the treaty organization. The US has greater leverage dealing with each country separately.

Mind that in case of a US-China war, we have no idea what shape NATO is even in.
But I agree with the implication that NATO (and to an extent, EU membership) is presently the one thing keeping Russia away from Baltic states.

You are probably overrating the value of the baltic states. Grabbing Ukraine or even the Caucasus back would be a better move, strategically, than grabbing some rather small, hard to defend and of little use territories in the Baltic.

Not that I think further border revisions in Europe are likely. Crimea was an abnormal case that had been festering ever since its bureaucratic transfer to Ukraine in the 1950s, and even then only triggered by facing a hostile government and the issue of the naval base there. Otherwise Russia benefited more in terms of influence by leaving a "pro-russian" population there inside Ukraine than by taking it back.
Central Asia and the Caucasus, there I think that we'll still witness more conflicts.

 

[Yeekim]

No, I don't think so. I believe they aren't worth invasion even if NATO disappeared and US wouldn't care.

Why risk aggravation with already hostile economies and their governments by starting a shooting war in the Baltic states with the aim of what exactly - capturing Berlin again?!? ..when you can slowly, safely and reliably make economic ties to the 2-3nd strongest economy in the world with their "infinitely" deep markets, consumers. It's not like Russia is short on territory. It has all it needs, so the correct course of action would be to improve economy in concert with natural ally the West conveniently created for Russia. And not pew-pew with the Estonians risking a global diplomatic shutdown over a port, which is easily replaceable.

You are probably overrating the value of the baltic states. Grabbing Ukraine or even the Caucasus back would be a better move, strategically, than grabbing some rather small, hard to defend and of little use territories in the Baltic.

I dearly hope that you are all correct and I am mistaken.
However, I would not count on Russia to not resort to an opportunistic land grab if it believes it can get away with it.
It may not be "worth" it in economic terms, but a "small victorious war" may occasionally have a completely different kind of value in domestic politics.
Just recall the starting conditions of the second Chechen war.
After all it's not as if it is economically valuable to Russia. Rather, my understanding is, that it costs Moscow an arm and a leg (in federal subsidies) to keep.
South Ossetia, Crimea and Donetsk are hardly cash cows either...

EDIT: Also, apologies for derailing the thread.

 

[red_elk]

Just recall the starting conditions of the second Chechen war.

I remember it very well. Radical islamists in power in Chechnya, incursion in Dagestan, terrorist attacks and suicide bombings almost on monthly basis.
Putin comes to power with "we will fix the mess" agenda. It wasn't small victorious war, it was messy as hell and took almost a decade to complete. We still had Dubrovka in 2003 and Beslan in 2004.

 

[Yeekim]

I remember it very well. Radical islamists in power in Chechnya, incursion in Dagestan, terrorist attacks and suicide bombings almost on monthly basis.
Putin comes to power with "we will fix the mess" agenda. It wasn't small victorious war, it was messy as hell and took almost a decade to complete. We still had Dubrovka in 2003 and Beslan in 2004.

Well, there is also the conspiracy theory (iirc floated by soon-after-helicopter-crashed general Lebed) that bombings in Moscow which served as immediate casus belli were, in fact, organized by FSB. No way for me to know, obviously. But the war did skyrocket the popularity rating of Putin, which had started in single digits, so it worked great in that regard - even if the conspiracy theory is just that.

 

[aelf]

Here people even hate talking bad about china. Current CP Zeman said that we should learn from Chinese how to stabilise society and when was Chinese security beating Czech protesters and policemen were taking out posters for free Tibet, no words from him. America would be taken as villain for escalation.

Yes, this is becoming more fashionable culturally. Even some in the liberal West admire it. At least the trains run on time, eh?

 

[Lexicus]

Yes, this is becoming more fashionable culturally. Even some in the liberal West admire it. At least the trains run on time, eh?

I've had this terrible fear since Trump won, that Fukuyama was right and it's the end of history, but it was sort of a distorted mirror-image of what he proposed: history doesn't end with liberal democracy but with a Panopticon state ruled by a tiny elite which quite cold-bloodedly throws most of the world into the fire to protect its own position

 

[innonimatu]

history doesn't end with liberal democracy but with a Panopticon state ruled by a tiny elite which quite cold-bloodedly throws most of the world into the fire to protect its own position

Don't worry, the tiny elite still needs people with guns to repress everyone else when they get pissed off. It will still get overthrown by its own servants every now and then.

What I fear is a neverending repetition of history, where things improve and the get worse again.