Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 85
  1. #51
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    Makes a change from being subject to the whims of an unelected white, male, foreign British hire.
    Attempts at introducing democracy were proposed by the British in the 1980s.
    This attempt was rejected by the Chinese government. It subsequently continued to be ruled under sovereign democracy as a British Colony.

  2. #52
    Thailand Expat DrWilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    11,287
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    A fact that Sabang still chooses to ignore, and replace with his signature obfuscation/random imaginings.
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    Makes a change from being subject to the whims of an unelected white, male, foreign British hire.
    Q.E.D.

    Do you smile to yourself when you type shite like that or do you really think the audience won't notice?

    It's clumsy as all fuckk!

  3. #53
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    It is very true- and I will add another thing for your delectation. Usually Scottish too! (Until Chris Patten that is, but the less said about him the better). It was a common inside joke among us 'colonials' that HK, really, was a Scottish colony. Jardine Matheson, Swire Group, HSBC, Standard Chartered- all founded by Scots! HSBC even retained a tradition of installing a jock as Chairman, certainly until I was living there- and the Crown Colony also had a tradition of installing a Scot career diplomat as Governor, until Patten who was a political appointment.

    One more thing. The Chief Executive of Hong Kong SAR is elected, dumbos. However the current guy, John Lee, ran unopposed- so a bit of a joke of an election. Since the Handover, the Chief Executive of HK has usually been female- and HK Chinese. And always elected, by popular vote.

    Dontcha just love these also-rans with absolutely no knowledge of or familiarity with HK, trying to lecture me about HK.

  4. #54
    In Uranus
    bsnub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    30,408
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    However the current guy, John Lee, ran unopposed- so a bit of a joke of an election.
    He ran unopposed because the CCP wanted it that way, you imbecile. It was a sham election.

    Hong Kong’s Rigged Election – The Diplomat

  5. #55
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,995
    The only thing multipolar in this thread, is the entitled stupid comments rattling around in Sabang’s empty head.

    The appointment of a Chinese funtionary by Chinese diktat is not a democratic election.

  6. #56
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    John Lee was a a senior HK Policeman who never lived in the PRC. My remaining ICAC contacts reckon he's a good bloke ��.

    Maybe you're just sore because You get no say.

  7. #57
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    John Lee was a a senior HK Policeman who never lived in the PRC. My remaining ICAC contacts reckon he's a good bloke ��.

    Maybe you're just sore because You get no say.
    More irrelevance!

    Im just sore because you went from interesting poster to gullible sycophant for no apparent reason.

  8. #58
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Rather than bothering about HK's rather miniscule problems, maybe you should look closer to home? Believe me, they do much better than you, where you come from, and where you choose to live.

  9. #59
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,541
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    Rather than bothering about HK's rather miniscule problems, maybe you should look closer to home? Believe me, they do much better than you, where you come from, and where you choose to live.
    Whataboutwhataboutwhatabout etc.


  10. #60
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    Rather than bothering about HK's rather miniscule problems, maybe you should look closer to home? Believe me, they do much better than you, where you come from, and where you choose to live.
    How does this post connect to an inaccurate thread title. Please show you working out when you eventually get around to answering. (Evidence).

  11. #61
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Do your Homework- it's only 3 pages now, so go back and check for yourself who sent it off kilter.
    Meanwhile, I await Jeffrey Sachs next article, and will also provide other articles I consider germane to the new MPW, as they come up.
    I have a feeling this may be a sleeper thread, with a long life ahead. A slow burn, you might say. Certainly relevant to our times.

  12. #62
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    Do your Homework- it's only 3 pages now, so go back and check for yourself who sent it off kilter.
    Meanwhile, I await Jeffrey Sachs next article, and will also provide other articles I consider germane to the new MPW, as they come up.
    I have a feeling this may be a sleeper thread, with a long life ahead. A slow burn, you might say. Certainly relevant to our times.
    No working out and no supporting evidence. I was right the first time. Better to scroll past and avoid blatant ignorance from the op.

  13. #63
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    No supporting evidence? Jeez, now that is an ignorant comment. Do you still think the World exists in a US/(Anglo) dominated, Unipolar world order swish?

  14. #64
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    No supporting evidence? Jeez, now that is an ignorant comment. Do you still think the World exists in a US/(Anglo) dominated, Unipolar world order swish?
    Are you aware of the existence of more countries than the ones you mention.

    You see other posters can also obfuscate too.

    I challenge your assumption that the thread title is valid. It isn’t.

  15. #65
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:29 AM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    34,869
    ANALYSIS - The illusion of the multipolar world
    The illusion of multipolarity derives from American strategic choices, not the system itself, the international system remains unipolar.
    8.11.2022

    ANALYSIS - The illusion of the multipolar world

    The writer is a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science at the School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Cincinnati, USA.

    ISTANBUL

    Immediately after the end of the Cold War, the debate on unipolarity became popular in Western academia and policy circles. Unipolarity refers to the material superiority of a single superpower, measured by indicators like military might, economic resources, and technological capabilities. The debate had its apex during the 1990s. Some discussed the stability of unipolarity [1], while others focused on the durability [2] of such an international system.

    Since the United States (US) emerged as the sole superpower after the collapse of the Soviet Union, its strategic behavior was the key to making sense of unipolar politics. The world was initially optimistic about the prospects of peace as the Berlin Wall and the Soviets were falling. Then came the Gulf War in 1991. And Bill Clinton’s liberal internationalism was followed by Bush's interventionism in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US pursued a grand strategy of primacy [3]. It was making the world over in its own image by engaging in regime change, nation-building, and promoting democracy, using either military force or international institutions [4].

    However, in recent years, the observation that the international system is no longer unipolar has been frequently voiced in both Western and non-Western academic circles. Proponents of this view argue that the world has evolved into a multipolar order [5] where other major powers, notably Russia and China, have become more influential in international politics. Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and China's growing influence in the Asia Pacific constitute a basis for the multipolar world saga.

    While it is simply a matter of measuring [6] the global distribution of material power, the concept of polarity has been used loosely and ambiguously. Polarity is largely based on the materialist conception of power [7], supported by auxiliary elements like culture, values, and diplomacy. Considering the relative material capabilities of all major powers [8], the US remains the only global power [9] with a self-sufficient military, solid economy, and technological edge. Proponents of multipolarity misread the systemic consequences of American strategic behavior. They focus on the outcomes of the political relationships that the US prefers to maintain with the rest of the world, rather than its structural power position.

    The false promise of American retrenchment

    Beginning from Obama’s second term, the US has gradually retreated from the role of global leadership. It is not a strategy of isolationism in its strict sense, but a strategy of retrenchment [10]. It suggests that the US should not be "the world’s policeman". A fragile internal consensus on foreign policy has led the US to be a cautious hegemon. The American public has become more reluctant to expend American blood and treasure on distant regions. Many in the US foreign policy and national security establishment have believed that the US should end “endless wars” [11] and exert a strategy of restraint [12]. Such domestic political factors lead American presidents to rethink the cost of maintaining the strategy of primacy.

    The strategy of retrenchment, however, created power vacuums across regions. Major powers like Russia and China have tried to fill the geopolitical voids since the US scaled back its commitments across regions. The US also asked its allies to assume more responsibility for dealing with their security problems. Greater responsibility comes with a greater economic and political burden. Most US allies were not prepared to go it alone. The EU states had to review their national security stance, sparking debates centered on strategic autonomy [13] and a European army [14]. Russia and China have adopted emboldened and assertive foreign policy stances. The US pullback from global leadership has thus caused a false perception of multipolarity.

    Russia and China, however, don’t seem to stand as peer competitors vis-à-vis the United States. The Russian military has often been touted as the second-largest military power. While Russia maintains a considerable nuclear arsenal, the blunder in Ukraine has put its conventional forces into question. China, on the other hand, continues to grow economically. Even if China’s GDP surpasses US GDP, China still has much to do to catch [15] the US. The widespread belief that economic growth will effectively translate into military power is misleading. Extracting military power from available resources requires a state to have strong and competent institutions. Also, China’s power projection capacity is still limited for a potential global military power. The Chinese military has yet to develop a military doctrine [16] that protects China’s global interests.

    Multipolarity, but when and how?

    As China builds up its military, its expanding nuclear arsenal is expected to lead the world into “a nuclear multipolarity.” The most recent US National Security Strategy [17] points out that this is the most serious threat that the United States will face by the 2030s. Only under this condition, the US will have to deter two nuclear major powers at the same time. This will be an unprecedented strategic balance that even goes beyond the Cold War.

    Is the US back in town?

    Having coped with the pandemic during his first year in office, the Biden administration has increasingly become more engaged in world affairs. Biden’s “America is back” discourse signaled a U-turn in American national security posture. No doubt, the US military aid worth more than 18 billion dollars to Ukraine [18] marks this turn.

    Moreover, Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in August 2022 reaffirmed, albeit unofficially, the US policy of strategic ambiguity. Recent ambitious expert control regulation of the Biden administration aimed at China's semiconductor industry seems to be the beginning of a more aggressive economic competition, if not a decisive blow to the Chinese economy for now. Furthermore, the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Zawahiri is another signal that the US is still committed to taking down the threat coming from non-state actors.

    In conclusion, the illusion of multipolarity derives from American strategic choices, not the system (i.e., distribution of power) itself. The international system remains unipolar. Unipolarity does not mean that the United States rules the world. It, however, means that no other major power matches the US in terms of material capabilities. The United States has willingly retreated from playing the world’s policeman in recent years, giving rise to the illusion of multipolarity.

    ANALYSIS - The illusion of the multipolar world
    "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect,"

  16. #66
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:29 AM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    34,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Switch View Post
    I challenge your assumption that the thread title is valid. It isn’t.
    Agree. A rare wall from me above.

  17. #67
    Thailand Expat
    malmomike77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2021
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    13,629
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    the debate on unipolarity became popular in Western academia and policy circles.
    like most of these theories, academic hogwash

  18. #68
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    the US remains the only global power
    That depends how you measure power. If it refers to military might, unquestionably true. For a start, China has no Global military ambitions- in contrast, the US has +750 military bases worldwide. If it refers to other forms of power, such as economic and diplomatic sway, I reckon that is nonsense.

    By the end of the century, it is likely the USA will have the worlds third largest economy, after India and China. It is unlikely the US will have the same virtual monopoly over the worlds exchange currency (USD) & international transfer system (SWIFT). This is happening as we speak, albeit from humble beginnings.

    I'm afraid these parvenus are gonna pull up a seat at the top table. Wouldn't you? Fighting it forever is a grand example of Imperial over-reach, which has spelt the demise of many an empire.

    Fwiw, I think a sustainable 'Empire' is maintained on the basis of economic and diplomatic muscle- backed up (and perhaps originally established) by military might. Not the other way around.

    ** Interesting article and read there norts, but I reckon it is somewhat of a 'rearguard action' from academia. **
    Last edited by sabang; 27-01-2023 at 05:43 PM.

  19. #69
    Days Work Done! Norton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Online
    Today @ 05:29 AM
    Location
    Roiet
    Posts
    34,869
    Quote Originally Posted by sabang View Post
    By the end of the century
    Likely but we will know for sure in 77 years.

  20. #70
    Thailand Expat

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Last Online
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Location
    Sanur
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Norton View Post
    Agree. A rare wall from me above.
    While I agree with your conclusion, arriving at it is a bit squiffy.

    China is a novice when it come to any international metric. One man cannot hold global dominance over others in any key field. XI is a particularly good example of sheltered incompetence. Look at the way he tried to buy back credibility over the zero Covid fiasco.

    Military power can only be counted when it is exercised for real. Spending money on big ticket items is pointless unless the manpower fully understands how it is used and interconnected. Short of bullying it’s civil population, China has no expertise in this area.

    Using the big stick against any person who gets too successful is a recipe for disaster at home.

    I could go on, but the kids would only prevaricate and use whataboutism. It’s all they’ve got.

  21. #71
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Why is the US so cautious about entering into a direct military conflict with Russia (although I reckon they are pushing the envelope a bit)? I mean, it is obviously a proxy war.

    The reason why is obvious. Same applies to India, and China- and obviously the USA. While the US has a preponderance of military muscle and unparalleled ability to project it worldwide, it cannot successfully invade Russia, China or India. So this is not tantamount to a 'monopoly' per se.

  22. #72
    กงเกวียนกำเกวียน HuangLao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    สุโขทัย
    Posts
    10,142
    Gatherings like these are soon to be archaic -




  23. #73
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456

    Goodbye empire? US sanctions are failing in the face of multipolarity

    Washington’s go-to methods can’t prevent the rise of other powers, an influential establishment journal admits

    Foreign Affairs, a highly influential US magazine – effectively a US empire house journal – has published an article detailing how sanctions are quickly losing their efficiency as a weapon in Washington’s global arsenal.

    Published by the Council on Foreign Relations NGO, Foreign Affairs provides space for officials within the US military industrial complex to communicate with one another on matters they believe to be of the utmost significance. Therefore, it is important to pay attention when the magazine makes major pronouncements on any issue.

    It recently published an appraisal of US sanctions – the conclusion being that they are increasingly ineffective, have prompted Beijing and Moscow to create alternative global financial structures to insulate themselves and others from punitive actions, and that Washington and its acolytes will no longer be able to force countries to do their bidding, let alone destroy dissenting states, through such measures in the very near future.

    The article begins by noting that “sanctions have long been the US’ favored diplomatic weapon,” which “fill the void between empty diplomatic declarations and deadly military interventions.” Despite this, it predicts “the golden days of US sanctions may soon be over.”

    These “golden days” were the immediate post-Cold War era, when Washington was “still an unrivaled economic power,” and therefore could at the press of a button cripple each and every overseas economy, in theory. This was due to “primacy of the US dollar and the reach of US oversight of global financial channels.”

    As international trade was overwhelmingly conducted using dollars, Washington could stop any country from exporting or importing any and all goods it wished, whenever it liked. Even then, Foreign Affairs recalls, US leaders themselves worried if sanctions were applied too liberally. In 1998, then-President Bill Clinton claimed his government was “in danger of looking like we want to sanction everybody who disagrees with us.”

    Read more
    EU looks for targets in tenth round of anti-Russia sanctions

    The Foreign Affairs article says Clinton’s fears were “overblown,” but this is precisely what came to pass. Governments, and the countries they represented, have been sanctioned for pursuing the wrong policies, refusing to be overthrown in US-backed coups and military interventions and showing any degree of independence in their domestic or foreign dealings whatsoever. In the process, millions have died, and even more lives have been ruined for no good reason.

    This approach has backfired, and badly. In response, states “have begun to harden their economies against such measures.” For example, after the US cut off Iran from the SWIFT global banking system, many other countries took note. Restricting China’s access to numerous technologies as part of the new Cold War has also served to place both Washington’s allies and adversaries alike “on notice their access to crucial technology could be severed.”

    Beijing and Moscow lead the way in the push to create “financial innovations that diminish US advantage,” creating a raft of “currency swap agreements, alternatives to SWIFT, and digital currencies” that serve as “preemptive measures” against any “potential penalties” down the line.

    Currency swaps, which connect central banks directly to each other and eliminate the need for trades between them to be dollar-backed, have been eagerly embraced by China. It has signed deals of this kind with more than 60 countries across the world, thereby enabling its companies “to circumvent US financial channels when they want to.”

    In 2020, Beijing settled more than half its annual trade with Moscow in currencies other than the dollar, making the majority of these transactions totally immune to US sanctions, and that figure has only risen ever since. In March that year also, the China and Russia-led Shanghai Cooperation Organization officially prioritized development of payments in the local currencies of its members.

    Read more
    EU threatens to widen sanctions

    Beijing and Moscow are also, Foreign Affairs reports, “busily preparing their own alternatives” to various Western-dominated international systems. Their alternative to SWIFT, the Cross-Border Interbank Payment System, isn’t yet a match in terms of transaction volume, but that’s not the point. It prevents them, and any state or organization enrolled in the framework – 1,300 banks in over 100 countries already – from being unable to make international financial transactions, should they be cut out of SWIFT.

    Similarly, China is expanding the reach of the digital renminbi, the currency issued by Beijing central bank, at home and overseas. More than 300 million of its citizens already use it, and a billion are forecast to by 2030. The currency is completely sanctions-proof as the US has no ability to prevent its use, and Beijing has encouraged several countries to pay for its exports exclusively using it – “other such deals will probably follow,” Foreign Affairs predicts.

    The American empire’s obsessive reliance on sanctions has now created a Catch-22 situation, by the magazine’s reckoning. The already hostile relations between the USA, China and Russia mean Moscow and Beijing are pushing ahead with this revolutionary effort no matter what. If “things get worse,” they’ll simply “double down on their sanctions-proofing efforts,” taking more and more countries with them.

    “These innovations are increasingly giving countries the ability to conduct transactions through sanctions-proof channels. This trend appears irreversible,” the article bitterly concludes. “All this means that within a decade, US unilateral sanctions may have little bite.”

    It is all these developments, along with Moscow’s economic pivot eastwards after the 2014 Ukraine coup, and move towards self-sufficiency in energy and food and in other vital resources, which account for the embarrassing failure of US-led sanctions against Russia.

    Western leaders, academics, journalists, pundits and economists promised when these sanctions were imposed that they would soon lead to Russia’s total political, economic and military collapse. They have not, demonstrating that elites in Europe and North America do not understand the global economy they claim to rule. They should get to grips with the new reality they inhabit in short order, though – for a multipolar world has begun to emerge in 2022, and it is here to stay.


    Read more
    Effect of EU sanctions on Moscow is ‘less than zero’ – MEP

    How rapidly US elites are reckoning with the radically different reality in which they are now forced to operate is ironically underlined by how quickly the author of the Foreign Affairs article, Agathe Demarais, seems to have completely changed her tune on the subject of sanctions. On 1 December, less than a month earlier, she authored a piece for Foreign Policy – another US empire in-house journal – that offered a radically different take on the matter.

    Boldly declaring “sanctions on Russia are working” in the headline, Demarais dismissed suggestions punitive Western measures were intended to “force Putin to back down and pull out of Ukraine,” or to provoke “regime change” in Moscow, or to prompt “a Venezuela-style collapse of the Russian economy,” despite the fact every single one of these outcomes was explicitly cited as a motivating factor behind the sanctions by Western officials, pundits, and journalists at the time.

    Instead, she argued, sanctions were effective in the quest to “send a message to the Kremlin” that “Europe and the United States are standing with Ukraine.”

    Whether or not Kiev will be thrown under a bus by its Western backers in due course, and the anti-Russian measures will endure after the war is over, seems to not matter so much, though – for, as Demarais was herself forced to acknowledge less than four weeks later, the effectiveness of sanctions is rapidly diminishing. This speed of this about-face could well be an indication of how irresistibly the multipolar world is coming to be.

    https://www.rt.com/news/569926-us-sanctions-not-work/

    The Foreign Affirs article- https://www.foreignaffairs.com/unite...-age-sanctions

  24. #74
    Thailand Expat harrybarracuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    96,541
    Well it looks like grabbed his slot on the wanketeers first team, with both him and sabang flooding TD with nothing but ridiculous propaganda bullshit.

  25. #75
    Thailand Expat
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    @
    Posts
    38,456
    Nice night at the pub 'arry?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •