Attribution is to determine as much as you can about the target, here: who made the picture, where, when, who published the picture, to whom, when where how. Extract as much identifiying information as you can about this photo. Happy news: this is a safe challenge, no steel will be laid on target, so you can't screw up. Unlike that retired light colonel who is going to Fort Leavenworth Kansas to enjoy his government funded retirement home.
We're Putting the Band Back Together.
Victoria Nuland is quitting her post. Whether it means she is being promoted, demoted, retiring, or ill -- I have no idea, so don't ask, and don't bother looking here for hints. I keep an Arms length from the legal eagles.
Leaky, blabby, nopsec, and so easily pwn3d.
And yet THIS still happens!
I won durr why? )))
Китай закупил крупную партию украинской кукурузы
https://www.apk-inform.com/ru/news/1540000
China buys up all the grain it can from Ukraine (elsewhere too). Implications
1. China signalling real support for Ukraine.
2. China concerned about possible economic blockade by USA (that will not happen. why take chances is their logic).
3. China knows Ukraine will win.
-1 boat, -1 helicopter.
https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-kotov-helicopter-1875969
Another Russian oil Depot goes up in flame!
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-oil-depot-terminal-drone-attack-belgorod-video-1875896
and yet Another Russian oil depot goes up in flames!
https://ura.news/news/1052740427
Get used to it. Hey! 嘿! 我饿了! 我要吃飞机! I think I will eat another plane or 四...
About Me:
Teixera or however you spell traitor just got 16 years lol.
WAR AND CHINA
War is terrible for ordinary people, yet state power can gain its own interests through war. For the aggressor, war is for the benefit of the high rulers. For the defenders, war is to defend their own land, people and the fate and future of the country. Wars of aggression are shameful and it is through this lens which we should see Chinese theories of war and it is the len we ourselves should use! It is realistic i.e. materialist, based on facts, yet hopeful and inspiring and also strategically correct. Politics of cynical exploitation fail, whether led by literal Hitler, a colonial empire, or the neoconservatives. Their greedy opportunism inclines them to overreach, to act too rapidly, to seek gains that are beyond their means. These errors are often compounded by dualism, elevating abstract bullshit like "spirit" "national will" "the samurai code of bushido" "the aryan will-to-power" above actual facts like "Those fuckers outnumber us" or "We have qualitatively superior weapons and much more experience at actually using them". The calculus of war is factual, not aspirational, even though in war "the moral is to the material as three is to one". Or in other words: moral factors are a force multiplier, and zero times anything is still zero!
My theory is that China seeks energy and now also agricultural autarchy. From this theory I look at Chinese foreign policy, which appears to verify it. Knowing this search for autarchy I can make predictions about and even influence Chinese foreign policy.
I also believe we better understand current Chinese policies by considering Chinese history. I may have only expect to have a superficial understanding. sometimes that is all one needs. "In the kingdom of the blind, the one eyed man is king." I do NOT "see farther"! Madeleine Albright was wrong, but people looooooove to have their fucking egos stroked. If America in fact "saw farther" it would not have had the debacles in Afghanistan and Ukraine. Even if you "see farther" you better have your feet squarely planted on earth if you want to actually accomplish anything good.
Chinese policies are: "'seeking common ground while reserving differences, seeking unity, concentrating efforts to accomplish great things, starting from reality, and having professional people do professional things, seeking balance (moderation)'
To understand China's policies, one not only needs to understand its history, but also its geographical environment and environmental characteristics. After all, ancient policy-making was inseparable from climate factors".
In other words: Chinese history alone is insufficient to understand current policies. One must also understand geography and China's environment (neighbors), geography and language and ideology and this is at a minimum one ought also know economics and of course military science. This is why youth are generally not the best directors, it is not their intelligence courage or perceptions, all of which are finest. Rather, it may be their inexperience and certainly is due to the fact it takes at least 30 years of life to acquire all the skills needed to competently direct foreign and security policy,and really more like 40. I have fifty, which is why I can outmaneuver my opponents: they lack some of the skills needed and so inevitably make mistakes which I perceive and exploit.
The Chinese environment is very complex, with many neighboring countries, and several countries were former vassals of the Central Plains dynasty, even former Chinese territory. They have a strong sense of defense against China, fearing that their former suzerain country will return. And the neighboring countries of Central Asia, the United States, have buried many hidden dangers therein.
How to handle these relationships is truly a test of the wisdom of the rulers.
Basically i am working on strategies of defensive isolationism in the military sector coupled with economic engagement, this is roughly speaking how i think the future of transpacific relations should grow. I am certain their will be greater trans pacific trade and investment. I believe there will be fewer wars and foreign interventions because of deterrence. I am uncertain how expensive deterrence will turn out to be.
China's strategy for economic development of impoverished countries, especially those which are Chinese neighbors is sensible, wise.This is part of why I am certain their will be increased transpacific trade and investment, despite the reactionary efforts of incoherent opportunistic liberals to retrench and even seeking to hobble the Chinese economy. I don't think they will succeed since they are disorganized, often are dualist rather than materialist, and because the USA is not the only country China could trade or invest with.
Despite their mutual constraint to policies of peace and prosperity thanks to the structural factors of the international system and their own domestic constraints, these structural reasons also mean both the USA and China risk inappropriate over-reactions, whether by misperception of their domestic political situation or misperceptions of each other's capacities and intentions. There is also in consequence the risk of inappropriate actions and reactions, which may also arise from recollection of historic experiences.
Yet they will be constrained to peace and trade rather than to war and arms racing: this is not merely due to greedy liberals' opportunism. It is also because of benevolence and enlightened self-interest. Impoverished neighbors are dangerous. People who are not poor are much less likely to go to war. This is why China's development strategy is in China's own interest, aside from Anglo-Chinese political competition or contention.
Still there is enough mutual misunderstanding thanks to cultural and language differences that inappropriate policies and reactions are likely, and so must be anticipated and prevented or, failing that, corrected before they burst into war.
The misapprehensions are not confined to the yahoos, tankies, rednecks, or mercedes marxists. Even experts who should know better make mistakes. For example, Graham Allison misapprehends the risks: it is not Chinese jealousy or ambition nor is it U.S. hegemony which would drive them to war! Mistakes arising from misperceptions and misapprehensions would be the only driver of an Anglo-Chinese war. Mearsheimer is even more mistaken than Allison: it is not the structure of the international system or individual leaders' psychologies or self-interest that drives the mutual destruction which is war. War most usually results from miscalculation, not over-weening ambition. In the case of China and the Anglo-Americans, these miscalculations are likeliest to result from misapprehensions resulting from the differences in language, culture, governance structures, appreciation of intentions, and even recognition of capacities outlined above. Ignorance of each others' histories and governance structures does contribute to the risk.
The misapprehensions are not monoplized by 'murricans: For example, one school of Chinese thought believes the USA invaded Afghanistan to keep Afghanistan poor, so Afghans would be unable to buy Chinese products thus stunting the Chinese economy. Serious Chinese leaders genuinely believe the USA is now out to stunt the Chinese economy. Who can blame them, the extremists Americans, mostly influenced by falun daffy religious nutjobs talk of doing exactly that. In reality however, U.S. feminist imperialists sought to turn Afghanistan into ... Sweden, a social democracy with gay rights and feminism, this in a country which is a tribal patrairchal semi-feudal subsistence economy of sincerely religious Moslems. What could possibly go wrong?
So, although China misapprehends U.S. actions in Afghanistan, the USA likewise misapprehends the political realities in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. This is why I say even a half-assed comprehension of Chinese history and language is will give you greater insights into Anglo-Chinese relations than most so-called experts!
At any rate, regarding "kneecapping" the Chinese economy, it is unlikely the USA could do so. There is an entire world for Chinese markets outside the USA. U.S. misperceptions do result in irrational policies. Thanks to misperceptions in the USA:
1. Some, e.g. Mearsheimer, argue that the USA should try to hobble China's economy. Mearsheimer is wrong again. A policy seeking to hobble hobble China's econo would be foolish, unnecessary, and might not even be possible. People who push for policies to punish China (for what?) and hobble the Chinese economy are extremists and unrealistic. They are reactionaries, reacting to China and not thinking things through and acting calmly.
2. Others argue that rather than seeking to cripple China's economy the U.S. instead should seek not to benefit, but also not to harm China's economy. More or less they seek a stagnant Chinese economy, which they claim is inevitable due to demographic and/or limitations in Xi Jinping's governance of China. Zeihan is closer to this position and in that sense is less mistaken than falun daffies or maga rednecks.
3. My own view is radical but on the other extreme. China isn't really a threat to the USA militarily speaking. But, to hem in Chinese extremist nationalists, the USA should contain Chinese military adventures through policies of deterrence to prevent wars between China and any of China's neighbors. The risk of war is provocations between China and any of China's neighbors (pick a provocateur, it takes two to tango). China and the Anglo Americans could wind up in war by accident as outlined above. Thus the USA must take up policies of military deterrence and containment (sticks) coupled with economic engagement, trade and investment (carrots). The alternative to deterrent containment would likely be a war between China and some or any of China's neighbors. Thus, paradoxally, deterrent-containement is in China's own interest!
4. I also argue that China can and should do development relief among Chinese neighbors using e.g. Peace Ark.
The real military missions facing China are anti-piracy, counter-terrorism, humanitarian relief in the face of natural disasters, as well as U.N. peacekeeping missions. Those are the real military missions facing China. Not "let's invade Taiwan".
I don't think the U.S. militarists need deterring, but do recognize China will want to deter them anyway.
Each of them will try to reign in and deter the other's extremists but in different ways.
I anticipate increased economic exchanges between China and countries China wishes to trade with.
MUTUAL MISAPPREHENSIONS IN ANGLO-CHINESE RELATIONS
Earlier I described how their mutual misapprehensions can get them in trouble. China proceeds fearing American traps, which is prudent, but as a result can lead China to take actions which exacerbate conflict. U.S. foreign policy doesn't go around trying to set up traps. This is because the USA is a status quo hegemon, more interested in stability than marginal power gains. The USA does not go around like a little leninist launching provocations left and right to try to gain small marginal concessions hoping they eventually will lead to qualitative and not quantitative change or to use the provocation to (mis)lead the opponent into a trap. Their foreign policy elites are not marxist-leninists and most of them are ignorant about any or all of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Regarding traps, the U.S. attitude toward trappy situations is like this: "we would prefer you to do this other thing, very much so in fact, and really hope you do, and can even point out these benefits if you do this thing. In contrast, you could do that other thing, which we would prefer you not to do, but we will not do anything if you do. I wonder what others will do?"
The U.S. people are not racist against Chinese generally. This is especially true of the U.S. elites. Nor do the U.S. people, whether elites or masses, fear China. If anything, U.S. people like Chinese people because the Chinese are hard working intelligent and even kind, benevolent.
Inversely, just as the USA does not go around provoking other countries hoping to fuck them up, nor goes around trying to set up traps and force other countries into them, other countries may indeed do exactly that. The reason for this is due to an asymmetry in military power:
a) The USA has overmatch against every other state and so can afford the risks of a policy of benevolence. The cost of a catastrophic error by opponents of the USA would be great, but certainly bearable to the USA, and such errors would work to the detriment of the would-be opponent.
b) In contrast, most other states lack the military power projection and logistics networks which the USA enjoys. Thus, they must rely on indirect methods, namely luring the USA into foolish unwinnable wars, to weaken U.S. military and economic power and to distract U.S. leaders.
Your opponent is not just like you: if he were, he would not be your opponent. Yet, Anglo-Chinese cultural commonalities are why they are likelier, despite misapprehensions, to relate peaceably through trade rather than antagonistically through war. In Maoist terms: the USA and China are only in relative and not absolute contradiction.
Some people may not know, China wishes to drive the USA out of the eastern hemisphere, militarily speaking: Mearsheimer is correct about that one. Economically speaking, I expect global trade to continue under any circumstance short of a war between China and any or all of the USA, Japan, ASEAN , EU. Although I can envision the USA containing China militarily I do not think China could drive the USA out of the Eastern Hemisphere.
It is the confucian, or is it buddhist, benevolence of China and the Christian benevolence of the USA people alongside their mutual penchant for wealth getting that will drive them together. Each is in fact benevolent and thus will eventually see that about the other. I do not regard the Chinese ideology as malevolent, and one can certainly find benevolent aspects about Marxism-Leninism-Maoism if one wishes to: in any case I do think Xi Jinping's ideology is well-intended, seeks the best for China and the world. As history shows regimes built on fear force and fraud fail, and thus benevolence is not merely the wiser policy, it is also the practical one.
HOW TO DEMOCRATIZE INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?
Diplomatic ministries of foreign affairs, treaty making and trade agreements are now inadequate to govern the world because of intensive trade and communication. there is not enough possibility for non-military political interactions to influence other states' policies in the current system.
I think the problem facing governance is how each country can take into account and influence other countries without war. In a country we can have votes, but there is no voting mechanism between countries. Example: if we took a vote "should the USA and China go to war" in China or the USA I am sure neither would vote for war! But there is no such mechanism internationally. This is a serious governance problem and the forward thinkers at Harvard law school need to consider how to build democratic international institutions for the peaceful productive articulation of political will. Existing international economic institutions such as the WTO or legal institutions such as the World Court or WTO Appellate Body are better than nothing but there is very clearly a governance gap, resulting from instant global telecommunication, leading to "influence" and "corruption" whether through "lobbying" or "espionage". There are simply no democratic institutions for interactions. Even the basically toothless UN General Assembly faces democratic deficit since there is a one country one vote system which makes some small island in the middle of the ocean just as important as a great power such as the USA or China. Neither population nor economic wealth are considered in the international system, which is why you have claims of Russian election interference in the USA.
THE INADEQUACY OF MILITARY MEANS TO POLITICAL ENDS
In fact, as long as a country develops well, other countries will naturally be influenced and learn from it. This does not require the use of the military. In fact the military is a defense force: "we break things and kill people". Thus, the military is generally of no use for cultural or development goals. Military means are often inadequate to actual tasks of global governance.
The mere use of force is inadequate "to hold them all in awe" (Hobbes). No one likes a bully: so the naked use of force, exemplified by Bush Juniors little experiment in Iraq, does not arouse admiration, but instead incites a rebellious mentality. No one likes being told what to do, let alone told what to do "or else": So it is necessary for the State to have comprehensive approach to power and influence to attract voluntary compliance and replication of will. With a powerful military as its backstop, a prosperous economy, moral virtue, compassion, benevolence and and a rich culture as the vanguard, in combination of them is what a great country should do."
This is the key to comprehending Chinese foreign and cultural policies: it is like a "combined arms" approach to foreign policy. Moral virtue to guide, compassion and benevolence to adjust, economic prosperity as the foundation, and the military as a backup, reserve, insurance policy to deter other countries misadventurism. And you liberal greedsters would have me oppose any or all of that, how, exactly?
Here is an example of the misapprehensions of which I speak. I just read a news article where a speaker at the 2 sessions said something like "reunification" and not "peaceful reunification", when i know for a fact China is committed to peaceful reunification, only. and the article asks oh is this a change in policy. i have no idea why people have trouble taking others' at their word (are they themselves dishonest?) The Chinese in contrast would view such an article as a "provocation", an effort to push China to react inappropriately. When in fact it is better seen as a sort of liberal self-questioning, and clickbait, greedy liberal opportunism is to be expected. This is why I say things like "fucking liberals": they are greedy, opportunistic, and economical with the truth. Fuck 'em! Fuck 'em in the ear!
Here is yet another example of how rarty liberal opportunism can fuck us all over. Liberals rightly reported that China will increase military spending by 7%, without noticing that much of such "military" spending is really "dual use". The local government wants to build a school! Well, congratulations, its a military academy! With the least motivated soldiers you ever met... Or the local government needs to repair the waterworks. Well, the Chinese Army Corps of Engineers delivers yet another preparation for the next war in the form of ... new toilets: and similar things which would not be considered military spending in fact. Not one word of this fact in the liberal media.
Countries which spend lots on weapons have slower economic growth. An arms race is a great way to stunt China's economy. 😞 So of course some sectors of the liberal gaggle will push for an arms race. They are likely to fail.
Basically every country faces the security problem of wanting lots of weapons AND a strong economy. You can't have both. See Keyword: "guns and butter". How much of which do you want?
The smart Chinese strategy is to make China too expensive too attack. This is also what Singapore does and with a far smaller population. There is in fact no reason to attack China, but why should China take my word for it? Yet the smartest Chinese military strategy is also the least expensive.
However, thanks to liberals rarty provocations China can no longer have preferential policies for Taiwan. Otherwise, foreign governments would perceive Beijing as weak willed. The United States should bring temporary peace to the Middle East and concentrate on encircling Russia in Eastern Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.The Chinese almost universally resent Taiwan's approach.
1. I cannot well-understand China's internal political questions of governance, this is especially true in cross straits relations.
2. I don't see the USA as trying to use Taiwan to provoke the rest of China.
No one wants another civil war, not even the extremists in the USA let alone extremist Chinese people.
Although the United States should bring temporary peace to the Middle East this is easier sad than done.
Although the USA should concentrate on encircling and defeating Russia this will prove to be bloody, tragically.
The USA has overmatch with respect to China, and can assemble a coalition of allies, which China currently cannot do. By making that really public it would humiliate Chinese people and your leaders. So I don't point out overmatch: why embarass humiliate or shame an economic partner? In fact, we should be happy there is over match, not just in numbers or technology or allies but at least two and really three. This means they do not have to arms race and can focus on economics and peace as opposed to preparing for a war.
When Pandora opened her box, despite being told by the God not to, all the demons flew forth into the world to work the ways of destruction. Yet, glowing in the bottom of her box lay one last spirit.
Hope.
Hope dies last. I leave you with hope.
BIG BAD DOG BARKS:
BIG BAD DOG DOES BITE!
TIME SERIES PREDICTIVE ANALYSIS NOTES:
I think I am more accurate than most other analysts, but I know i confine my predictions to issues of war and peace. I do not make predictions about tax rates, central bank prime, unemployment, or most any other economic indicator. It's unsurprising to me if liberals or capitalists make overly optimistic predictions: sometimes it's wishful thinking other times it's disinformation still again one must please one's corporate masters or political constituents, there are lots of reasons that even an actual historical-materialist can err, especially if one tries to make qualitative political, quantitative economic, or mixed predictions about defense and security all at once. It's not that I am lazy or stupid. Rather I try to stay focused on one target, hoping thereby to be more accurate, while being aware of my own OPINIONS and others Predictions regarding the economy.
My predictions are actually accurate, even if limited, and are more accurate than Niall Ferguson (predicted China would arm Russia, which has not and shall not happen) or Kotkin (predicted a truce, which will not happen).
Being famous was not my goal. After Putin's horrible smash and grab fails completely we will go from there. Maybe I get famous idk.
Ukraine will win.