Eurasia Topics

**harrybarracuda** · 06-04-2021, 01:47 AM

And here comes skidmark to add to the annoying buzzing noise.

**panama hat** · 06-04-2021, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by Backspin

Russia has the same government as Singapore. If Singapore is a dictatorship then Russia is.

You've tried that before and were easily and rightfully put in your place . . . why try again just to look the fool . . . again?

**OhOh** · 06-04-2021, 06:20 PM

China and Russia Launch a ‘Global Resistance Economy’

Alastair Crooke April 5, 2021

"The U.S. will ignore the message from Anchorage. It is already testing China over Taiwan, and is preparing an escalation in Ukraine, to test Russia.

Sun Tzu’s The Art of War (c. 500 BCE) advises that: “To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands; yet the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself … Therefore the clever combatant imposes his will; and does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him”. This is the essence of the Chinese resistance economy – a strategy which has been fully unveiled in the wake of the Anchorage talks; talks that silenced any lingering thoughts in Beijing that America might somehow find some modus vivendi with Beijing in its headlong pursuit of primacy over China.

Although earlier there had been tantalising glimpses of déshabillé, the full reveal to China’s tough stance and rhetoric has only been permitted now – post-Anchorage – and the talks’ confirmation that the U.S. intends to block China’s ascent.

If it is assumed that this ‘resistance’ initiative constitutes some tit-for-tat ‘jab’ at Washington – through sinking Biden’s Iran ambitions, as revenge for America loudly crying ‘war crimes’ (‘genocide’ in Xingjian) – then we miss wholly its full import. The scope of the Iran pact by far transcends trade and investment, as one commentator in the Chinese state media made plain: “As it stands, this deal (the Iran pact) will totally upend the prevailing geopolitical landscape in the West Asian region that has for so long been subject to U.S. hegemony”.

So here is the essence to ‘a clever combatant moving to impose his will’ – there is no need for China or Russia or Iran to go to war to do this; they just implement ‘it’. They can do ‘it’ – quite simply. They don’t need a revolution to do it, because they have no vested interest in fighting America.

What is ‘it’? It is not just a trade and investment pact with Tehran; neither is it simply allies helping each other. The ‘resistance’ lies precisely with the way they’re trying to help each other. It is a mode of economic development. It represents the notion that any rent-yielding resource – banking, land, natural resources and natural infrastructure monopolies – should be in the public domain to provide basic needs to everybody – freely.

The alternative way simply is to privatise these ‘public goods’ (as in the West), where they are provided at a financialized maximum cost – including interest rates, dividends, management fees, and corporate manipulations for financial gain.

‘It’ is then a truly different economic approach. To give one example: New York’s Second Avenue Subway extension cost $6 billion, or $2 billion per mile – the most expensive urban mass transit ever built. The average cost of underground subway lines outside the U.S. is $350 million a mile, or a sixth of New York’s cost.

How does this ‘it’ change everything? Well, just imagine for a moment: the biggest element in anyone’s budget today is housing at 40%, which simply reflects high house prices, based on a debt-fuelled market. Instead, imagine that proportion at 10% (as in China). Suppose too, you have low-cost public education. Well then, you are rid of education-led debt, and its interest cost. Suppose you have public healthcare, and low priced transport infrastructure. Then you would have the capacity to spend – It becomes a low-cost economy, and consequently it would grow.

Another example: The cost of hiring R&D staff in China is a third to half the comparable cost in the U.S., so China’s tech spend is closer to $1 trillion a year (in terms of purchasing power parity), whereas the U.S. spends just 0.6% of GDP, or about $130 billion, on federal R&D.

At one level therefore, this ‘it’ is a strategic challenge to the western eco-system. In one corner, the debt-driven, hyper-financialised, yet stagnant economies of Europe and the EU – in which strategic direction and economic ‘winners and losers’ are set by the Big Oligarchs, and in which the 60% struggle, and 0.1% thrive. And, in the far corner, a very mixed economy in which the Party sets a strategic course for state enterprises, whilst others are encouraged to innovate, and to be entrepreneurial in the mould of a state-directed economy (albeit, with Taoist and Confucian characteristics).

Socialism versus capitalism? No, it is a long time since the U.S. was a capitalist economy; it’s hardly even a market economy today. It has become, more and more, a rentier economy since leaving the gold standard (in 1971). This forced U.S. exit from the ‘gold window’ facilitated the U.S. via the resultant global demand for U.S. debt instruments, (Treasury bonds), to finance itself for free (from out of the entire world’s economic surplus). The Washington Consensus ensured additionally that the inflows of dollars to Wall Street from around the globe would never be subject capital controls, nor would states be able to create their own currency, but would have to borrow in dollars from the World Bank and the IMF.

And that essentially meant borrowing from the Pentagon and the State Department in U.S. dollars, who ultimately were the system ‘enforcers’, as Professor Hudson notes. The shift in the U.S. financial system to being an entity that that prioritises ‘real’ assets, such as mortgages and real estate that offer a certain ‘rent’, rather than to invest directly in speculative business ventures, also means that debt jubilees are verboten. (The Greeks can recount the experience of what that entails, in grim detail).

The point is that – at the economic plane – the U.S., hyper-financialised sphere is fast shrinking, as China, Russia and much of the ‘World Island’ turn to trading in their own currencies (and do not buy U.S. Treasuries). In a ‘war’ of economic systems, America therefore starts on the back foot.

Halford Mackinder argued a century ago that control of the ‘Heartland’, which stretched from the Volga to the Yangtze, would control the ‘World Island’, which was his term for all Europe, Asia and Africa. Over a century later, Mackinder’s theory resonates as the two leading nations behind the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) transform this into a system of inter-relations from one Eurasian end to another. It is not so new, of course. It is simply the revival of the ancient trade-based economy of the Eurasian heartland, which finally was collapsed in the 17^th century.

Alastair Macleod notes that commentators usually fail to understand ‘why’ this flourishing in West Asia is happening: “It is not due to military superiority, but down to simple economics. While the U.S. economy suffers a post-lockdown inflationary outcome and an existential crisis for the dollar – China’s economy will boom on the back of increasing domestic consumption … and increasing exports, the consequence of America’s stimulation of consumer demand and a soaring budget deficit”.

There, explicitly said, is Sun Tzu’s point! “Opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself”. There is in Washington (and to an extent in Europe too), a faction entertaining a pathological emotional desire for war with Russia, largely stemming from a conviction that the Tzars (and later Stalin), were anti-Semitic. Their emotion is one of hatred and anger, yet it is they who largely are responsible for bringing Russia and China together. This, and America’s proclivity to sanction the world, has given China and Russia their opportunity.

The underlying point however, is that – even for the EU – the Rimland periphery is less important than Mackinder’s World Island. There was a time when British and then American primacy outweighed its importance – but this may no longer be true. What is actualising here is the greatest challenge yet mounted to American economic power and technological supremacy.

Yet this economic Realpolitik is but half the story to China and Russia’s launch of a ‘global resistance economy’. It has a parallel geo-political frame, too.

It is to this latter aspect, most probably, that the Chinese official referred when he said that the Iran deal would “totally upend the prevailing geopolitical landscape in the West Asian region that has for so long been subject to U.S. hegemony”. Note that he did not say that it would upend Iran’s relations with U.S. or Europe – he said the whole region. He implied too, that China’s initiatives would free West Asia from American hegemony. How so?

In an interview last week, FM Wang Yi outlined Beijing’s approach to the West Asian region:

“The Middle East was a highland of brilliant civilizations in human history. Yet, due to protracted conflicts and turmoil in the more recent history, the region descended into a security lowland … For the region to emerge from chaos and enjoy stability, it must break free from the shadows of big-power geopolitical rivalry, and independently explore development paths suited to its regional realities. It must stay impervious to external pressure and interference, and follow an inclusive and reconciliatory approach to build a security architecture that accommodates the legitimate concerns of all sides … Against this backdrop, China wishes to propose a five-point initiative on achieving security and stability in the Middle East:

“Firstly, advocating mutual respect … Both sides should uphold the international norm of non-interference in others’ internal affairs … it is particularly important for China and Arab states to stand together against slandering, defamation, interference and pressurizing in the name of human rights … [the EU should take note]

“Second, upholding equity and justice, opposing unilateralism, and defending international justice … China will encourage the Security Council to fully deliberate on the question of Palestine to reaffirm the two-state solution … We should uphold the UN-centred international system, as well as the international order underpinned by international law – and jointly promote a new type of international relations. We should share governance experience … and oppose arrogance and prejudice.

“Third, achieving non-proliferation … Parties need to … discuss and formulate the roadmap and timeframe for the United States and Iran to resume compliance with the JCPOA. The pressing task is for the U.S. to take substantive measures to lift its unilateral sanctions on Iran, and long-arm jurisdiction on third parties, and for Iran to resume reciprocal compliance with its nuclear commitments. At the same time, the international community should support efforts by regional countries in establishing a Middle East zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

“Fourth, jointly fostering collective security … We propose holding in China a multilateral dialogue conference for regional security in the Gulf (Persian Gulf) …

“And fifthly, accelerating development cooperation …”.

Well, China has spectacularly made its entrance in the Middle East, and is challenging the U.S. with a resistance agenda. FM Wang, when he met with Ali Larijani, special adviser to the Supreme Leader Khamenei, framed it all in a single sentence: “Iran decides independently on its relations with other countries, and is not like some countries that change their position with one phone call”. This single comment encapsulates the new ‘wolf warrior’ ethos: states should stick with their autonomy and sovereignty. China is advocating a sovereigntist multilateralism to shake off “the western yoke”.

Wang did not confine this political message to Iran. He had just said the same in Saudi Arabia, before arriving in Tehran. It was well received in Riyadh. In economic development terms, China earlier had linked Turkey and Pakistan into the ‘corridor’ plan – and now Iran.

How will the U.S. react? It will ignore the message from Anchorage. It will likely press on. It is already testing China over Taiwan, and is preparing an escalation in Ukraine, to test Russia.

For the EU, the Chinese entry into global politics is more problematic. It was trying to leverage its own ‘strategic autonomy’ by erecting European values as the gateway to inclusion into its market and trade partnership. China effectively is telling the world to reject any such hegemonic imposition of alien values and rights.
T
he EU is stranded in the midst. Unlike the U.S., it is precluded from printing the money with which to resurrect its virus-blighted economy. It desperately needs trade and investment. Its biggest trading partner, and its tech well-spring, however, has just told the EU (as the U.S.), to give up on its moralising discourse. At the same time, Europe’s ‘security partner’ has just demanded the opposite – that the EU strengthens it.

What’s to be done? Sit back, and watch … (with fingers crossed that no one does something extremely stupid).

.https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/04/05/china-russia-launch-global-resistance-economy/

The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

**harrybarracuda** · 06-04-2021, 07:13 PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

**panama hat** · 07-04-2021, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by OhOh

China and Russia Launch a ‘Global Resistance Economy’

**OhOh** · 13-04-2021, 03:03 PM

Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan Resolve 30-Year-Old Border Dispute, Territories Being Exchanged

Apr 07, 2021

"Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan have agreed to resolve their border dispute, which dates back 30 years to 1991 and the breakup of the Soviet Union. The resolution comes as the entire Central Asian region is preparing for greater Asian connectivity. It is almost certain that China will have had some role to play in brokering the deal; both countries are members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Belt & Road Initiative.

Resolving the dispute has become increasingly important as it affects bilateral interconnectivity that impacts upon China and the Kyrgyz borders at Torugart and Erkeshtam and the Asian Highway AH65, used for goods transportation from both countries to China trade access. A planned Erkeshtam-Kashgar railway is also currently under consideration. Resolving territorial disputes is key to the viability of these investments.

Resolving the border dispute has practical considerations for both Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, as the regions under debate have important water supplies. Uzbekistan has obtained water use rights, however in return provide Kyrgyzstan with arable land. Kyrgyzstan will receive some 13,000 square hectares of disputed land under the agreement.

The future of the city of Sokh, a city of 85,000, is an Uzbek enclave surrounded by Kyrgyzstan, yet mainly populated by Tajiks has also been resolved with direct access to Uzbekistan being permitted. These agreements have been earmarked for finalization by the beginning of July this year.

There are still many regional Central Asian land disputes to resolve, with several examples of enclaves belonging to one country being surrounded by another and cut off from its parent nation. In Central Asia, only Turkmenistan lacks any enclave disputes. Kazakhstan has two in Uzbekistan, while Tajikistan has one in Uzbekistan and two in Kyrgyzstan. Uzbekistan has two Kazak enclaves, one Kyrgyz and one Tajik enclave on its territory; while Kyrgyzstan has one exclave in Uzbekistan and, despite the new agreement, still has three Uzbekistani and two Tajikistani enclaves within its borders. Resolving each of these will be difficult – but this is where the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has thus far successfully been able to encourage settlements with an eye on the far larger communal trade picture.

However, teething problems are expected with the Kyrgyz Uzbek land swap. Kamchybek Tashiev, the head of Kyrgyzstan’s State Committee for National Security (UKMK) has visited the impacted areas and stated that
“There are villages there in which thousands of people live, and there are thousands of hectares, and the fate of these need to be resolved. If the people are against the land-swap agreements, it is possible that some will not be implemented.”

Both Governments need to tread carefully – all the impacted land swap areas have seen violence erupt previously over water resources, with Kyrgyz and Uzbek locals fighting. Clashes in May 2020 left 200 citizens injured.

If the transitions can be managed properly, both Bishkek and Tashkent will have shown that regional disputes can be settled, and that regional progress is possible. Both wish to take advantage of new transportation routes that will open the way for greater economic development. Getting the local villages onside is going to be key."

Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan Resolve 30-Year-Old Border Dispute, Territories Being Exchanged - Silk Road Briefing

**harrybarracuda** · 13-04-2021, 05:10 PM

So what have the chinkies got their beady eyes on there then?

**russellsimpson** · 14-04-2021, 01:05 AM

I wish them well with the agreement, credit where credit is due imo.

Sure the Chinese are currently being villified and rightly so for their handling of the situation in the west of the country and their recent bout of aggressive behaviour vis-a-vis current land disputes. I have no love for the Communist Party of China.

But let's be reasonable and accept that they occassionally do things that may be beneficial for neighbouring countries.

This is what rationale men and women do.

**panama hat** · 14-04-2021, 04:11 AM

Originally Posted by russellsimpson

But let's be reasonable and accept that they occassionally do things that may be beneficial for neighbouring countries.

What have they done in this case?

**russellsimpson** · 14-04-2021, 05:08 AM

"Facilitated the agreement" according to my very quick read.

That was my sense of it in any case.

I avoid tall grasses and rabbit holes.

**OhOh** · 14-04-2021, 02:06 PM

Surprised?

White House pushes for ‘orderly’ withdrawal from Afghanistan by 9/11 anniversary, US definitely missing May 1 deadline

13 Apr, 2021 23:38

"American troops staying in Afghanistan past the date agreed upon in the treaty with the Taliban wasn’t unexpected, but the Biden White House announcement they will definitely leave before or by September 11 could be big – if true. The Biden administration “will begin an orderly drawdown of the remaining forces before May 1 and plan to have all US troops out of the country before the 20th anniversary of 9/11,” according to a senior official speaking to reporters on background Tuesday. President Joe Biden himself is scheduled to formally announce this on Wednesday.

“We went to Afghanistan to deliver justice to those who attacked us on September 11th and to disrupt terrorists seeking to use Afghanistan as a safe haven to attack the United States. We believe we achieved that objective some years ago,” the official said, adding that the US has “long known that there is no military solution to the problems plaguing Afghanistan.”

The withdrawal is not “condition-based,” meaning it will happen regardless of the situation in Afghanistan. It will begin before May 1, but will extend past the date agreed in the 2020 agreement signed in Doha due to “operational and logistical issues” required for a “safe and orderly” pullout, the official said.

This has been the talking point in Washington for the past month, though Biden himself had flubbed it during his March 25 press conference, saying the reasons were “tactical” instead. There are reportedly some 2,500 US troops in Afghanistan, along with up to 1,000 special forces personnel.

The unnamed official went on to reassure reporters that the US will maintain an intelligence and diplomatic presence in Afghanistan, give visas to Afghans who collaborated and their families, and work to “protect the gains made by Afghan women.” Pegging the pullout to the anniversary of 9/11 might strike a chord with the American public, but the hawkish faction in Washington has already denounced Biden for surrendering and dishonoring the memory of the 2001 attacks.

Congresswoman Liz Cheney (R-Wyoming), daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney who oversaw the original invasion, denounced the withdrawal as a “dangerous signal that the United States fundamentally does not understand—or is willfully ignorant of—the terrorist threat” and something that “hands the Taliban and [al-Qaeda] a propaganda victory, abandons our global leadership position, and plays into our adversaries’ hands.”

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) called it “so irresponsible, it makes the Biden Administration policies at the border look sound,” and described it as “dumber than dirt and devilishly dangerous.” Graham also echoed Cheney’s claim that it would be a signal of weakness to al-Qaeda, Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS) terrorist group, “Hezbollah, China, Russia, and Iran.”

In a Senate floor speech, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) called it “a grave mistake” and “a retreat in the face of an enemy that has not yet been vanquished, an abdication of American leadership.”

Bill Kristol, a neconservative who backed the original invasion and now a Biden voter, argued that the 20-year war has been “worth it” and “continues to be worth it.” Even some Democrats, such as Senate Foreign Relations chair Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey) were concerned “that after so much blood and national treasure that we don't lose what we were seeking to achieve.”

This is not the first time a US administration Biden was a part of made a promise to retreat from Afghanistan. In October 2012, President Barack Obama quoted his then-VP Biden as saying “We are leaving in 2014. Period.” Except it wasn’t, because it obviously didn’t happen.

However, while the McConnell-Graham-Cheney wing of the GOP successfully joined forces with Kristol, the Democrats and the Pentagon establishment to sabotage President Donald Trump’s plan to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of 2020, there is no indication that Biden will face the same problem. He doesn’t need the Republican votes, the Democrats seem likely to fall in line, and the Pentagon appears to be loyal in a way it never was to Trump.

Another indicator that the withdrawal might actually happen is that multiple British outlets reported on Tuesday evening that the UK has drawn up plans for all of its 750 troops to leave Afghanistan.

As for the Taliban, they have insisted on the May 1 deadline and said anything else would be a “violation” of the Doha accords and warrant an unspecified “reaction.” On Tuesday, however, their spokesman Mohammad Naeem only said that “Until all foreign forces completely withdraw from our homeland, the [Taliban] will not participate in any conference that shall make decisions about Afghanistan.

That’s bad news for both Turkey, which said it wanted to broker ceasefire talks next week, and the government in Kabul, which is likely to collapse without US support much like South Vietnam did in 1975.

Just two years earlier, US President Richard Nixon had brokered a “peace with honor” and withdrew troops from what had been America’s longest war – until Afghanistan took over that dubious distinction."

https://www.rt.com/usa/520951-biden-...rawal-taliban/

**harrybarracuda** · 14-04-2021, 02:21 PM

the government in Kabul, which is likely to collapse without US support

Awwww, hoohoo will be able to make snide comments about the US being defeated while the taliban go back to throwing acid in schoolgirls faces.

**Klondyke** · 14-04-2021, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

the taliban go back to throwing acid in schoolgirls faces.

How heart-breaking the concern of our 'arry's...
(and perhaps there are some Uighurs around as well...)

**panama hat** · 15-04-2021, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by Klondyke

How heart-breaking the concern of our 'arry's...

Clearly you're not concerned about that yet you start a picture thread about your operation. (Again, I hope you're recuperating well)

**harrybarracuda** · 15-04-2021, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by panama hat

Clearly you're not concerned about that yet you start a picture thread about your operation. (Again, I hope you're recuperating well)

Were they fixing the botched lobotomy?

**panama hat** · 15-04-2021, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Were they fixing the botched lobotomy?

It seems having replaced half his brain with styrofoam didn't change anything about him

**OhOh** · 18-04-2021, 10:52 AM

Moved to

Fossil Fuel Alternatives

**OhOh** · 18-04-2021, 11:12 AM

Sino-American Antagonism: How Does This End?

Chas Freeman 2021-04-15
Remarks to the Confucius Institute, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho

Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. (USFS, Ret.)

Visiting Scholar, Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs,Brown University
By video link from Washington, D.C. 15 April 2021

"Fifty-three years ago, as a young foreign service officer, I helped ensure that Taipei rather than Beijing continued to represent China in the United Nations Security Council and elsewhere internationally. Since then, I have seen relations between China and the United States evolve from mutual ostracism based on stereotypes that bore little resemblance to reality to varying degrees of cooperation and mutual understanding and back again. Now we’re once again off to the races in all sorts of struggles with China with nary a clue where any of them will take us.

It seems to me that before we get too far along this path, we ought to pause to think a bit about a few key questions. These have been strikingly absent from our policy debate.

Specifically:

What are the stakes for China and for the United States respectively?
What current tactical and future strategic capabilities does each bring to the fight we’ve now begun?
What are the likely consequences for each side of protracted struggle with the other?
How are these struggles most likely to turn out?

So, in my remarks today, I’ll take the past as given and try to focus on the future.

The Chinese political elite appears to believe that five main things are stake:

A final reversal of the carve-up of China by European and Japanese imperialism, warlordism, the Chinese Civil War, and America’s Cold War intervention to separate Taiwan from the rest of the country.
Status and “face” (self-esteem fed by the deference of others) that offset past foreign insults to national dignity.
Assured defense against foreign “regime change” operations or military interventions that could threaten the rule of the Chinese Communist Party, China’s return to wealth and power, or the consolidation of China’s claimed frontiers.
China’s uninterrupted return to the high economic and technological status it enjoyed before its eclipse by European imperialism.
A role in the management of the affairs of the Indo-Pacific region and the world commensurate with China’s size and burgeoning capabilities.

The American political elite also appears to believe that what’s at stake[1] is five things:

U.S. retention of global and regional politico-military, economic, technological, and monetary primacy.
America’s reputation as the reliable military protector of lesser states in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere.
American paramountcy in a world order guided by the liberal democratic norms professed by the European Enlightenment and the American Revolution
Economic security through reduced dependence on supply chains not controlled by the United States or countries beholden to it.
Reindustrialization, higher levels of well-paying employment, and the restoration of domestic socioeconomic tranquility."

Continues here:

Sino-American Antagonism: How Does This End? – Chas W. Freeman, Jr.

**Backspin** · 18-04-2021, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by panama hat

You'll like this one

16 tourists from Germany arrive in Moscow to get vaccinated. Vaccination tours start at 1-3000 Euro

https://twitter.com/bneeditor/status...077100552?s=19

**panama hat** · 18-04-2021, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Backspin

https://twitter.com/bneeditor/status...077100552?s=19

They can do whatever they like . . . and several used this to visit family - Russian family - which was a benefit as well. Excellent propaganda for Russia.

**OhOh** · 18-04-2021, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Surprised?

"President Biden will withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan over the coming months, U.S. officials said, completing the military exit by the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001,"

Number 2.

We have a few issues to resolve, our Afghani partners will understand the implications.

Don't you think?

Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby Holds a Press Briefing

April 16, 2021
Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby

"Q: (OFF-MIKE)
MR. KIRBY:

Yes, let me go to Tom and then I'll come back to you. I've got to get on the phone too.

Q: Yes, John, if you could talk about the way ahead here, the -- Secretary Austin and Secretary Blinken talked about the U.S. will maintain a strong relationship with the Afghan government, the Afghan military. So with U.S. and NATO forces leaving will the training effort come to an end, number one?

And number two is the secretary talked about supporting the Afghan Air Force Special Missions Wing. That's all being done by contractors. Do you expect contractors to remain...

MR. KIRBY:

Right.

Q: ... when all troops leave or -- or do you know yet?

MR. KIRBY:

So on the contractors we don't know exactly. There are some preliminary plans. And clearly the goal is to get all our personnel out and I suspect that contractors will be part of that. But whether there'll still be a need for some contractor support, I just don't know. We don't have that level of detail right now. We're still working through that.

And I'm sorry, your first question was?

Q:

Will the training effort -- will that come to an end?

MR. KIRBY:

The -- the -- the mission, Resolution Support Mission, will be ending and that includes the training. The support that we will be offering the ANDSF going forward will be largely through a -- financial perspectives.

Q: Well, I mean, how does that work? Because, you know, right now the Afghan military can't maintain its own equipment, so they need contractors. They can't do it on -- on their own. So are you saying you'd just cut them a check and they find...

MR. KIRBY:

Tom, we're still -- we're still working out what the future bilateral security relationship's going to be with Afghanistan. We're going to transition to a bilateral relationship, a military relationship that's more akin to the kinds of relationships we have with other countries.

It will not include a U.S. military footprint on the ground in Afghanistan, with the exception of what's going to be required to support the diplomatic mission there. And all that's still being worked out. So I can't speak with specificity today about what contract support the Afghan Security Forces are going to need going forward.

And -- and I would take some issue with your assumption that they can't take care of their stuff. I mean, they -- they have been -- I mean, you're talking about a force that's now grown to roughly 300,000 people. They have their own air force and they are fighting the vast majority -- in fact, pretty much all the missions right now -- and, sort of, securing and defending their people. And they're far more competent and capable now than they have ever been before.

So I -- I take issue and I would suspect the Afghans would take issue with the -- you know, with the allegation that they can't take care of their stuff. I mean, they -- they do have an air force and they are caring for it.

Do they need some contract support, or at least right now? Yes, they do. But what that looks like in the forward -- that doesn't mean that it can't -- they can't still have contract support going forward. It's just going to be maybe of a different character. OK?

Pentagon Press Secretary John F. Kirby Holds a Press Briefing > U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE > Transcript

The new Afghan authorities will be given money to employ competent new or existing mercenaries to bomb, burn and slaughter Afghani citizens is the sick ameristani plan.U.S. sent pallets of cash to Baghdad

U.S. sent pallets of cash to Baghdad

By Jeremy Pelofsky

February 7, 2007

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said on Tuesday. "

U.S. sent pallets of cash to Baghdad | Reuters

**Klondyke** · 18-04-2021, 03:26 PM

"President Biden will withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan over the coming months, U.S. officials said, completing the military exit by the 20th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001,"

Luckily, there are also contractors (they do not belong under any military) there, they will further on secure that the schoolgirls will not be thrown under the bus, as is 'arry's concern...

**OhOh** · 19-04-2021, 11:39 AM

Xi urges Germany, EU to cooperate with China to bring more certainty, stability to world

Source: Xinhua| 2021-04-07 21:16:22|Editor: huaxia

"Chinese President Xi Jinping on Wednesday urged Germany and the European Union (EU) to make joint efforts with China to protect and promote the healthy and stable development of their cooperation, so as to bring more certainty and stability to the volatile world. Xi made the remarks in a phone conversation with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The Chinese president stressed that he and Merkel have communicated for several times last year, which has played an important leading role for the development of China-Germany and China-EU relations.

Enhancing China-Germany and China-EU cooperation could produce major results with significance, he said.

Xi pointed out that China-Germany pragmatic cooperation, despite of disturbance generated by the COVID-19 pandemic among other issues, has made progress while maintaining stability, with China being Germany's largest global trading partner for the fifth consecutive year, which demonstrates the resilience and potential of their cooperation.

Xi said he hopes that both sides will promote their cooperation in various fields in the spirit of mutual respect, mutual benefit and win-win, in order to help inject confidence and impetus to the China-EU cooperation and the revitalization of the world economy.

China is actively building a new development paradigm, Xi said, adding that China is relying on its own strength for development while sticking to opening up and actively participating in international division of labor and cooperation.

China is willing to share the opportunities brought about by its new round of opening up and development with foreign companies including those from Germany, he said.

Xi said he hopes that Germany will remain open and create more convenience for the enterprises of both countries to expand mutually beneficial cooperation.

He also encouraged the two sides to take the 50th anniversary of the establishment of China-Germany diplomatic relations next year and the Beijing Winter Olympics as an opportunity to promote exchanges in such fields as science and technology, education, culture, and sports.

Noting that China-EU relations are facing new opportunities as well as various challenges, Xi said that the key is to keep to the general direction and keynote of China-EU relations from a strategic perspective, respect each other and remove distractions.

Xi said China's development has been an opportunity for the EU and urged the EU to make correct judgment independently and truly achieve strategic autonomy.

China stands ready to work with the EU to ensure the success of a series of important political agendas for the next stage through consultation, deepen and expand practical cooperation across the board, strengthen communication on climate change and other global governance issues, and jointly practice multilateralism, Xi said.

Vaccines are used to prevent diseases and save lives, he said, stressing that China opposes the politicization of vaccines or "vaccine nationalism," and stands ready to work with Germany and the international community as a whole to promote fair and reasonable vaccine distribution, support and help developing countries to obtain vaccines, and contribute to humankind's common fight against the pandemic for an early victory.

For her part, Merkel said that the EU upholds independence in its foreign relations. The world today faces many problems and challenges, which all the more call for Germany-China and EU-China cooperation to address together, she said.

Strengthening EU-China dialogue and cooperation is not only in the interests of both sides, but also beneficial to the world, she said, adding that Germany is willing to play a positive role in this regard.

The German side attaches importance to China's 14th Five-Year Plan, expecting it to bring new and important opportunities for Germany-China and EU-China cooperation, Merkel said.

Germany is willing to work with China to prepare for a new round of Germany-China inter-governmental consultations, resume personnel exchanges at an early date, and strengthen exchanges and cooperation in such fields as the fight against COVID-19, climate change and biodiversity, Merkel said, adding that Germany hopes to maintain communication with China on issues such as fair distribution and mutual recognition of COVID-19 vaccines.

The chancellor added that her country stands ready to contribute to the success of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to be held this year in Kunming, China.

Xi urges Germany, EU to cooperate with China to bring more certainty, stability to world - Xinhua | English.news.cn

**Klondyke** · 19-04-2021, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Xi urges Germany, EU to cooperate with China to bring more certainty, stability to world

Didn't we heard 20 years ago from ...(forgot who told us that every week) how the world is (and will be) more and more secure?

Now, after 20 years and millions of dead, can the world be even more secure?

**russellsimpson** · 19-04-2021, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by OhOh

Xi urges Germany, EU to cooperate with China to bring more certainty, stability to world

The article requires a translation from political speak to plain English, currently something above my pay grade.

I look forward to reading some feedback.

Thread: Eurasia Topics

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions