Thread: Eurasia Topics

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

The main problem is that the west is trying to drag a bunch of islamic morons into the 21 century when they are quite happily living in the 6th century.

What post are you commenting on?

Perhaps it can be proved that they are complicit in bombing the poor Saudi, so the Iraq can be invaded again (this time from within) - and the oil fields destroyed again...

Oh just show them what proper missiles do FFS. Problem solved.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

show them what proper missiles do FFS.

Many aspects of a "missile", which are you referring too? The speed, manoeuvrability, the accuracy, the type of warhead carried, the cost of procurement, area of coverage, manufacturing facility requirements, legality ........

I would suggest some are looking for a more useful defensive, rather than offensive, missile/defence system myself.

China will use economic pain to hinder US's Pacific missile deployment

"The military balance in the Pacific is going in the wrong direction," said former U.S. defense department strategist Elbridge Colby recently. Following the dissolution of a landmark arms control treaty in early August, the U.S. is now eyeing where it might field missiles as a counterweight to China's sizable arsenal.

Signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty banned both conventional and nuclear ground-launched missiles with ranges of 500 kilometers to 5,500 kilometers. On August 3, the day after the treaty's demise, U.S. defense secretary Mark Esper remarked that he hoped to oversee the deployment of intermediate-range systems to Asia "sooner rather than later."

Re-engineering existing air- or sea-launched missiles is relatively trivial. Two weeks after Esper's comments, an official U.S. Department of Defense video showcased the dramatic, slow-motion exit of a Tomahawk cruise missile variant from a mobile Mark 41 launcher on California's San Nicolas Island -- a conspicuous demonstration of the system's technical maturity and of the Pentagon's intentions.

But deploying missiles only to established bases proves problematic. "Every inch" of Guam, a U.S. territory in the Western Pacific, is most likely targeted, according to one arms control expert; China's DF-26 ballistic missile is colloquially called the "Guam killer" and was showcased in the 70th anniversary parade in Beijing on Tuesday.




China's DF-26 ballistic missile is colloquially called the "Guam killer." © Imaginechina/AP

Last summer, 70,000 protesters dissatisfied with the proposed relocation of a U.S. air base from one portion of the Japanese island of Okinawa to another gathered in Naha to demand the base's complete removal. On an island expecting the eventual drawdown of U.S. Marines, the arrival of new missiles means more American troops, not fewer -- and would be answered with howls of disapproval.

For years, Pentagon planners have contemplated fortifying the "first island chain," a line running from the Kuril Islands off Russia's Kamchatka peninsula, past Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines, and curving round Malaysia to Vietnam.

One professor at the U.S. Marine Corps War College wrote that such a concept could be employed during conflict "to cut China off from its overseas markets and, more crucially, the energy resources it needs to sustain its economy and maintain societal peace."

Though now unfettered from the INF Treaty, finding consenting allies to host these missiles is an imposing challenge for the U.S., given China's economic leverage.
In April, Beijing lifted punishing sanctions it had imposed two years ago on South Korean retail conglomerate Lotte Group, after Lotte reluctantly provided land for Seoul's deployment of a missile defense battery.

In retribution, Lotte Mart stores in China were shut over alleged fire safety issues, construction was indefinitely suspended at Lotte projects in Shenyang and Chengdu, and Beijing forbid Chinese tourists from traveling to South Korea.

Seoul's economic wounds seem to have sufficiently discouraged any consideration of intermediate-range U.S. missiles. "We have not internally reviewed the issue and have no plan to do so," said the South Korean Defense Ministry publicly on August 5.

That same day, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison told reporters that hosting U.S. missiles had "not been asked of us," and wasn't being considered. One American columnist cited the "100 billion reasons" why Australia would refuse -- the annual dollar value of its trade relationship with China.

In late August, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte made his fifth official visit to China, and while he pledged to confront Beijing on its aggression in the South China Sea, his spokesperson mentioned talks could also touch upon the cooperative, including joint oil and gas exploration on Reed Bank.

Duterte has sought to open distance with the U.S., a Philippine treaty ally since 1951. In a speech to business leaders in the Great Hall of the People during his first state visit to China in 2016, Duterte declared that "America has lost" and announced his "separation" from the U.S.

The Philippines has over 7,000 islands, but none is likely to be offered as a base for U.S. missiles.

Of all regional allies, Japan would appear the most receptive. At a meeting of the National Security Secretariat in March, one participant reportedly urged Tokyo to actively consider "allowing for the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Japan."

That month, new Japan Ground Self-Defense Force bases opened on Amami Oshima and Miyako, in the southern Ryukyu Islands, while construction of another base was well underway on Ishigaki.

Japan's willingness is far from assured, however. Franklin Miller, a seasoned adviser who formerly served on the U.S. National Security Council, fears that controversial missile deployments would propagate destabilizing fractures throughout Japanese society, between pro-U.S. and anti-U.S. camps.

And China's commercial clout is well understood: one Japanese defense ministry official explained that if approached by the U.S., "We would face a very difficult choice."

In an economically-intertwined region, with mounting U.S.-China tensions, such choices will only become more difficult."

https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Chin...ile-deployment

HoHo has just discovered that the chinkies are bribing or threatening every country to which they can get a cake tin or a trade embargo.

That's quote the scoop there HoHo. I wonder if anyone else knows?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

bribing or threatening

Not quite. Just not deciding to invest.

Your definition describes illegal acts.

China decides, or not, where it invests it's manpower and finances. If the recipient country decides the conditions of doing business are too onerous they have the opportunity not to accept.

Some still do.

Similar to most countries with excess capital, manpower, productive capacity and ability to take the longer view etc. Although the numbers of such countries around the world are increasingly few.

But as history shows many countries and their businesses think only of their quarterly bonuses.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Not quite. Just not deciding to invest.

Your definition describes illegal acts.

China decides, or not, where it invests it's manpower and finances. If the recipient country decides the conditions of doing business are too onerous they have the opportunity not to accept.

Some still do.

Similar to most countries with excess capital, manpower, productive capacity and ability to take the longer view etc. Although the numbers of such countries around the world are increasingly few.

But as history shows many countries and their businesses think only of their quarterly bonuses.

HAHAHAHA "Investing".

It's called DEBT TRAP DIPLOMACY.

We've discussed it before. Are you suffering a bout of selective amnesia?

Stop talking about countries, most of the populations don't even know their leaders are taking backhanders that, for them, probably resemble the riches of Croesus.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

We've discussed it before. Are you suffering a bout of selective amnesia?

You have expressed your opinion, as you say, many times.

But upon investigation it has been found most countries owe much less money to China than other countries and western financial institutions

Originally Posted by OhOh

You have expressed your opinion, as you say, many times.

But upon investigation it has been found most countries owe much less money to China than other countries and western financial institutions

Oh dear, here we go again with our "whataboutism".

The chinkies are the ones that invented debt trap diplomacy, and they're spreading it like a cancer.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Yes factual accuracy is not everyone's forte.



Accepted history suggests otherwise.

Vassals ("a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire") of an empire, yearly tributes of gold/silk/magic potions/slaves/daughters/sons/salt/ ..... delivered upon a decisive battle, an annual tithe .....

No history lessons at Dock Green it seems.

What the fuck are you rambling on about now?

The Turkish attack on Rojava: Iran is no longer the US target in Syria



https://ejmagnier.com/2019/10/12/the...rget-in-syria/

Originally Posted by OhOh

The Turkish attack on Rojava: Iran is no longer the US target in Syria




https://ejmagnier.com/2019/10/12/the...rget-in-syria/

This bloke is hilarious. I wonder what drugs he's on.

China seeks $2.4 billion in sanctions against U.S. in Obama-era case: WTOGENEVA (Reuters) -

China is seeking $2.4 billion in retaliatory sanctions against the United States for non-compliance with a WTO ruling in a tariffs case dating to the Obama era, a document published on Monday showed.


WTO appeals judges said in July that the United States did not fully comply with a WTO ruling and could face Chinese sanctions if it does not remove certain tariffs that break the watchdog’s rules.

The WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body effectively gave Beijing a green light to seek compensatory sanctions in mid-August. The United States said at the time that it did not view the WTO findings as valid and that the judges had applied “the wrong legal interpretation in this dispute”.

China continued to be the “serial offender” of the WTO’s subsidies agreement, the U.S. delegation said. Contacted by Reuters on Monday, the U.S. mission in Geneva had no immediate comment.

China, in its request posted by WTO, said: “In response to the United States’ continued non-compliance with the (WTO Dispute Settlement Body’s) recommendations and rulings, China requests authorization from the DSB to suspend concessions and related obligations at an annual amount of $2.4 billion.”

The United States had failed to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings within the specified period and no agreement on compensation had been reached, it said.

China went to the WTO in 2012 to challenge U.S. anti-subsidy tariffs, known as countervailing duties, on Chinese exports including solar panels, wind towers, steel cylinders and aluminum extrusions, exports that China valued at $7.3 billion at the time.

The duties were imposed as the result of 17 investigations begun by the U.S. Department of Commerce between 2007 and 2012.

China’s request appears on the agenda of the DSB set for Oct 28. The United States could challenge the amount of retaliatory sanctions sought, which could send the long-running dispute to arbitration.

The office of U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer has said the WTO ruling recognized that the United States had proved that China used state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to subsidize and distort its economy.
But the ruling also said the United States must accept Chinese prices to measure subsidies, even though USTR viewed those prices as “distorted”.

China and the Trump administration are locked in a tit-for-tat trade war. White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow said on Thursday that China’s “serious commitment” to buy up to $50 billion worth of U.S. agricultural goods as part of a phase 1 trade deal would depend in part on private companies and market conditions.

U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he thinks a trade deal between the world’s two largest economies will be signed by the time the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meetings take place in Chile on Nov. 16 and 17."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN1X00W7

Two opinions of goldilocks recent actions regarding Syria, risks and outcomes.

A Panicked Israel Is a Dangerous Israel
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/10/21/a-panicked-israel-is-a-dangerous-israel/

and
Can Trump Survive Ending Project Syria?

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/10/21/can-trump-survive-ending-project-syria/

Will he deliver this time or cave as he has done so many times before?

Originally Posted by OhOh

Will he deliver this time or cave as he has done so many times before?

It's impossible for anyone to know when he hasn't got a fucking clue himself.

Russia is building a new empire and it looks promising. The Eurasian Economic Union. Its a proper free trade , customs and capital zone. Not even China has this.

Russia is accumulating the gold to use as a backstop for a new currency for this zone. It as 2200 tons now and will pass France and Italy by this time next year.

Iran and Turkey might join.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Oh dear, here we go again with our "whataboutism".

The chinkies are the ones that invented debt trap diplomacy, and they're spreading it like a cancer.

Whataboutism: What unilateralist western imperialists call comparative analysis and context when hypocritical agitprop exposed.

^ Jeff has stolen Backspin’s password!

Originally Posted by misskit

^ Jeff has stolen Backspin’s password!

I stole that line from Mark Sleboda on Twitter. Not someone named Jeff

Originally Posted by OhOh

Charity Polluted Farm Produce, is an unexceptional countries new USP.

The once world leader in so many fields, is becoming known as a third world commodity supplier.

As it's High Tech is being shown as overpriced and broken it is now dependent on selling to counties, who purchase at the "good will"/charity shops, GMO poisoned, farm produce.

China buys more U.S. soybeans as trade talks kick off: traders


CHICAGO (lture data.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN1R925C

This headline was from March. Now the same nonsense is being rehashed

The US president is now a soybean broker

The soybean broker in chief.

The soybean superpower.

The US economy is a joke

U.S. set to disappoint Asia with downgraded delegation for Bangkok summits

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has downgraded its participation in back-to-back Asia-Pacific summits in Bangkok next week, a move bound to disappoint Asian partners worried by China’s expanding influence.

While President Donald Trump is expected to attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Chile in mid-November, the most senior official from his administration who will be in Bangkok next week when Thailand hosts the annual East Asian Summit and U.S.-ASEAN Summit will be Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the White House said in a statement.

Ross is scheduled to lead the U.S. delegation to an Indo-Pacific Business Forum grouping government officials and business executives on the sidelines of the EAS.

Trump, a Republican, has named White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien as his special envoy to the summits, the White House said.

David Stilwell, the State Department’s assistant secretary for East Asia and the Pacific, will also be in Bangkok, but the U.S. delegation will be significantly outranked by other regional players including, Japan, India and China.

Despite declaring Indo-Pacific “the single most consequential region for America’s future” in a Pentagon strategy report this year, the Trump administration has steadily scaled back U.S. presence at the EAS and ASEAN gatherings.

While Trump attended the U.S.-ASEAN summit in Manila in 2017, he has never attended a full EAS meeting. Vice President Mike Pence represented the United States at the meetings in Singapore last year.

Trump’s predecessor, Democrat Barack Obama, by contrast attended every U.S.-ASEAN and East Asia summit from 2011, apart from 2013, when he canceled due to a government shutdown at home.

Asian diplomats say the lack of top-level U.S. representation in Bangkok will be a significant if not unexpected disappointment in a region increasingly concerned about China’s fast-expanding influence.

Trump plans to attend the primarily economics-focused meeting of APEC in Chile, where he has said he hopes to sign the first part of a deal with China to resolve a prolonged and damaging trade war.

However, diplomats and analysts say Trump’s absence in Bangkok will raise questions about U.S. commitment to the region, especially after his withdrawal from the 11-nation Trans Pacific Partnership trade agreement in 2017, shortly after he took office.

Last year, Trump, who is currently embroiled in a congressional impeachment inquiry, sent Pence in his place to attend APEC as well as the ASEAN and the East Asia summits.

Matthew Goodman, senior adviser for Asian economics at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, called U.S. attendance plans for Bangkok “a real issue.”

“As Woody Allen said, either 80 or 85 percent of life is showing up. And in the Indo-Pacific, that’s definitely true,” he told a news briefing previewing the summits. “If you show up, you’re given praise, whatever you actually say or do. If you don’t show up, it’s a real problem.”

Amy Searight, who was a senior defense official under Obama and is now a senior adviser at CSIS, said the EAS summit had become the premier strategic dialogue forum for the Asia Pacific, drawing leaders from China, India, Japan and South Korea, as well as those of the 10 ASEAN, or Association of Southeast Asian Nations, states.

“It’ll be headlines in the region that no senior American leader is coming to a summit with 17 other leaders from the Indo-Pacific,” she said.

“And I think it really does call into question ... how serious this administration is in its Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy,” she said. “And it really just calls into question the reliability of the United States as a strategic partner to this region.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...KBN1X9023?il=0

Reuters trying to set the agenda again. The Asians have many issues to discuss, the lack of western straw dog interventions allows a more harmonious meeting.