Thread: Eurasia Topics

Originally Posted by OhOh

State Duma passes law allowing Putin to run for president again

And while the thieving murderer stays in charge he can never be prosecuted.

I bet baldy orange loser really wishes he could have done this.

Originally Posted by OhOh

I hope you aren't suggesting that the ameristani "agreement" to stop committing acts of war, go back home and leave is another instance of its government lying.

Along with the ameristani government not protecting the Afghanistani citizens "human rights".

Where did I suggest anything like that? Are you demented or something?

I said if they launch terrorist attacks against anyone from Afghanistan soil, they have the moral right to flatten the c u n t s.

Waffle waffle same old shit.

Who Runs China?

What the West Gets Wrong About Its China Organizational Assumptions

By Chris Devonshire-Ellis 20/03/2021

"A common mistake made by many Western based China observers – and global media, when it comes to China is to assume that the figurehead at the top of Government is in complete charge. This derives in part from the all-encompassing position of the US President, from whom an assumption is that top-down decisions filter down.

The same, incorrect assumption is often levelled at the British Prime Minister of the day, and of most Western leaders. Taking up the responsibility for the pros and cons of their leadership, they are the characters most seen to be explaining and even appearing to own Government. This Western perceptive is also how people often view China. Common headlines refer to China as ‘autocratic’, a ‘dictatorship’ and other such dubious terms. However, China is far more subtle than this, and its days of dictators long gone.

The United States, and much of the West has not, and does not, understand that the Premier of China does not make policies. Xi Jinping might review policy in its final stages, he might sometimes announce them, but rarely, but he does not run China. He runs the Government.

The CPC and the Government of China have a very decentralized policy system, in which experts follow the “scientific method” over many years, even decades, until policies are tested, and tested again for linkage to other national priorities. The CPC makes policy, the Government implements. The policy groupings contain many from Government. But it is the CPC which leads the development of policy.

Therefore, the US placing sanctions on Chinese individuals – be it Carrie Lam, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Wang Chen, a member of the 25-person Politburo, one of China’s top decision-making bodies, or Tam Yiu-chung, the only Hong Konger on the committee to have drafted China’s national security law makes no sense. In China, it is viewed as individually spiteful. It is also frustrating for the China Government as it demonstrates that the US has no idea how to approach dialogue or direct targets, either for negative issues such as sanctions, or for positive issues such as trade talks and other more positive areas of cooperation.

The United States Government has erred in what it sees as targeting culpable individuals. This in turn is why the Alaska talks have deteriorated – Chinese diplomats, lawmakers and officials are made to feel as if they have been personally singled out and made individually responsible for national policy. No wonder the Chinese delegation referred to the US side as ‘condescending’ when seeming to ignore the entire Chinese Governmental decision-making process. The United States policy of placing sanction on individuals has had the effect of making the US as a country appear to be dealing with specific, targeted personnel and not with the Chinese Government.

It has the same approach to Russia, with US President Biden referring to Russian President Putin as ‘a killer’ when there is an entire state apparatus to contend with. While Putin is not everyone’s cup of tea, he is still the head of state of a powerful nation. Meanwhile, Mohammed Bin Salam, who the FBI stated was ‘culpable’ for the grisly murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, is not sanctioned. These are double standards, and the Chinese know this too.

The initial approach by the new Biden administration towards China and Russia has not been ideal. Instead of diplomacy, Washington’s modus operandi appears to be leaning towards making it personal. With negotiating more favorable trade terms with India next up, and an increasingly nationalistic Prime Minister Modi in power, the United States is potentially well on course to be having disagreements with just about everybody, making US-India talks even more important. Should they not proceed well, that should be indication enough that a re-think of how Washington engages with other countries Governments would be well overdue".

https://mailchi.mp/herecomeschina.com/defense-budget-jumps-13355079?e=c13ab2f7ce#mctoc8

More pro-chinky bullshit from another fat c u n t on the chinky payroll.

Chris Devonshire-Ellis

Chairman & Founding Partner Russia & China Belt Road Initiative Office

Originally Posted by OhOh

Who Runs China?

The President for Life

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

And while the thieving murderer stays in charge he can never be prosecuted.

I bet baldy orange loser really wishes he could have done this.

Different political traditions in Russia shitface. Russia isn't the UK or a British colony. Never was, never will be.

Russian lifestyle and health has never been better. The Russian Treasury has the 4th most reserves in the world. Russia has the lowest debt in the G20. That's good governance.

Originally Posted by Backspin

Russia isn't the UK or a British colony.

As much as I hate to say this, but they'd probably be better off had they been.

So why the UK cousin did not help to his Russian Cousin in 1917?

Allegedly, Nicholas paid him advance money for huge weaponry, the weaponry ship got mysteriously lost...

double post


Edited by TheRealKW 19:11 28.03.2021

Originally Posted by Klondyke

So why

You figure it out and let us know <no names need be used>

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Allegedly

Originally Posted by Klondyke

mysteriously

Ah, facts Klongdick style

Originally Posted by panama hat

As much as I hate to say this, but they'd probably be better off had they been.

Russia's politics is the way it is because it has no natural borders. It's not surrounded by water. So even if it was a Brittle colony , the politics would still be different.

Originally Posted by Backspin
Russia isn't the UK or a British colony.

Originally Posted by panama hat

As much as I hate to say this, but they'd probably be better off had they been.

Now, I cannot immediately recall a good example of a British colony where they would be better off... Perhaps India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many others around? Or did you mean Australia, Canada? What about the ones south of Canada?

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Now, I cannot immediately recall

that's not surprising

Originally Posted by OhOh

Iran and China sign 25-year cooperation agreement

25 years . . . yea, to be broken when it suits, but 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' and seeing as the US makes many enemies the ground should be clear for China . . . if they could show to be trusted, which they can't

Originally Posted by panama hat

25 years . . . yea, to be broken when it suits

"to be broken when it suits"?
It reminds me something, when it was last time? Oh yea, but that was the former guy, now it's all reversed, isn't it?

Originally Posted by OhOh

Iran and China sign 25-year cooperation agreement

Chinky bastards at it again.

Sucking up all that cheap oil for a few weapons no doubt.

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Now, I cannot immediately recall a good example of a British colony where they would be better off... Perhaps India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many others around? Or did you mean Australia, Canada? What about the ones south of Canada?

The US would sure be better off if it remained a British colony.

Originally Posted by panama hat

25 years . . . yea, to be broken when it suits

Originally Posted by Klondyke

"to be broken when it suits"?

Yes. Well done. You've managed to quote something.

China resents US presence in Afghanistan


March 27, 2021 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR


"The “hidden agenda” of the war on terror in Afghanistan has been an open secret. The first inkling of its geopolitical character came when it transpired that even after installing a pro-US regime in Kabul in 2002-2003, Pentagon was in no mood to vacate its Central Asian bases. Finally, the bloody Islamist uprising in Andijan in Fergana Valley in May 2005 prompted Russia and China to orchestrate an SCO consensus seeking the expulsion of the US from those bases. However, in public discussions, Russia and China have been reticent about that topic. Moscow occasionally broke its silence in recent years to voice disquiet that the US was transferring Islamic State fighters from Iraq and Syria to Afghanistan. Russia brought this up before the UN Security Council. But China largely kept mum.

Thus, a commentary in the CGTN in November 2020 titled U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan would require an end to interference in China’s affairs came as a bit of surprise. It concluded with great prescience: “The Taliban hopes to see Biden respect the [Doha] deal… but it still leaves the question about the US real objectives in Afghanistan. And it’s clear … that in order for the U.S. to see its way out of Afghanistan, it has to first see its way out of China’s affairs, and hopefully, Biden will also commit to doing just that.”

As Biden prepares a soft landing for his controversial decision to keep the US forces in Afghanistan even beyond the May 1 deadline stipulated in the Doha pact, Beijing has reason to be worried. In remarks on Thursday, Biden did not rule out the possibility of US troops staying in Afghanistan through the end of the year. Biden said, “It’s not my intention to stay there for a long time. We will leave. The question is when we leave.” When asked specifically if US troops will still be in Afghanistan next year, he parried, ”I can’t picture that being the case.” Biden could have been categorical, but he preferred to be metaphorical.

Meanwhile, reports are galore that a powerful body of opinion in the Beltway, including lawmakers, opposes a closure to the “forever war” in Afghanistan. Various spurious arguments are being advanced — that US should conclusively vanquish the terrorist elements and ensure Afghanistan’s security and stability first; shore up the “gains” of the war such as women’s rights; ensure that no terror group ever again operates out of Afghanistan; prevent occurrence of a civil war, and so on. Some of the NATO allies appear to empathise with these spurious arguments in Washington.

To be sure, China senses a red herring, given the backdrop of the US campaign on Xinjiang rising to a crescendo lately. The Chinese MFA Spokesperson Hua Chunying began her regular press conference on Friday by showing the video of an event called “Genocide in Xinjiang?” that included clips of certain remarks by retired Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a former chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the Ron Paul Institute in Washington on August 2018 who spoke “on the threefold purposes of the US presence in Afghanistan, one of which is to contain China.”

In Wilkerson’s assessment, one main reason behind the US presence in Afghanistan has been that “the CIA would want to destabilise China… (and) the best way to do it would be to foment unrest in Xinjiang.” Hua asked, “Doesn’t it feel like a déjà vu?” She cited Iraq, Syria and Hong Kong and underscored that “the so-called Uighur issue in Xinjiang is just a strategic conspiracy with an attempt to disrupt China from within and contain China.”

The Chinese state media have given wide publicity to Hua’s remarks. Indeed, Xinjiang is a major logistics centre for China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the gateway to Central and West Asia, as well as to European markets. The US is deeply hostile to the BRI and it is apparent that Washington’s campaign on Xinjiang is part of the Pentagon’s “Pivot to Asia,” along with naval threats in the South China Sea and support for separatist movements in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet.

The CIA has a long history of “weaponising” Islamist groups. It has for long sought to recruit and train Uighur mercenaries and Chechens from Russia’s Caucasus region, planning to use them as a future terror force in China, Central Asia and Russia. Both groups were integrated into the US’ regime-change operation in Syria and these battle-hardened fanatics formed the backbone of the Islamic State and Al-Qaida.

Much of all this took place under President Barack Obama’s watch. Vice-President Biden, no doubt, had first-hand knowledge of the US’ long-term project to destabilise China and Russia — and why Afghanistan remains an irreplaceable hub in the Pentagon’s regional strategy.

How far China’s hardening stance vis-a-vis the prospect of a long-term US military presence along Xinjiang’s border is going to impact the Afghan peace process remains to be seen. To be sure, Beijing’s security concerns will register strongly on Pakistan’s stance vis-a-vis the Afghan peace process. Put differently, a new template is appearing in the complex Afghan peace process, which can be potentially consequential.

Iran is also intensely conscious of the dangers of a long-term US military presence in Afghanistan. The laser-guided missile attack on an Afghan military helicopter killing several military personnel in Wardak last week, reportedly by pro-Iranian militia, can be seen as a timely warning to the US military. Clearly, the Biden administration’s refusal to give a firm commitment on troop withdrawal from Afghanistan can only complicate matters. The Taliban has taken exception to Biden’s move to defer the troop withdrawal. Biden’s lame excuse that logistical difficulties come in the way of troop withdrawal preys upon credulity.

Nonetheless, Biden seems confident that none of the major regional states — China, Russia, Pakistan, Iran — wants to bell the cat and confront the US. Biden can afford to be complacent so long as no body bags arrive from the Afghan killing fields. Having said that, key regional countries, including Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran, have a broad consensus on the Afghan peace process. They all want a political settlement of the Afghan war and also recognise the Taliban as a political entity.

Indeed, Moscow has given a tepid reaction to Biden’s deferment plan, leaving things to Washington and the Taliban. Russia counts on Pakistan to do the right thing and is deepening its cooperation with the latter’s “very active and constructive efforts.” China of course has a robust alliance with Pakistan.

Washington is pulling all stops to reach a deal exclusively with Pakistan and Taliban devolving upon the creation of an interim government in Kabul. Two top British commanders came to Rawalpindi in the space of a fortnight this month to discuss Afghanistan with the Pakistani COAS Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa, including the chief of the Strategic Command General Sir Patrick Nicholas Yardley Monrad Sanders, who handles Britain’s covert and overt operations abroad.

London traditionally acted as the vanguard of US military and intelligence operations on the territories of the erstwhile British Empire. Biden had a call with UK prime minister Boris Johnson on Friday where they, inter alia, “agreed to work closely together on shared foreign policy priorities, including China and Iran.”

https://www.indianpunchline.com/chin...n-afghanistan/

China resents US presence in Afghanistan

Of course it does. It wants to lend them some money at extortionate rates to build some useless fucking buildings.

China resents US presence in Afghanistan

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Of course it does. It wants to lend them some money at extortionate rates to build some useless fucking buildings.

How fortunate, that we have here somebody who "Always Looks On The Bright Side Of the Matter"...

BTW, wondering whether there is anybody who does not "resent"... (beside 'arry)

Originally Posted by OhOh

China resents US presence in Afghanistan

Originally Posted by Klondyke

BTW, wondering whether there is anybody who does not "resent"... (beside 'arry)

Good Lord . . . can you even try to make sense?