New World Order: Fading and Rising World Powers

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
870
Likes
883
Country flag
China sanctions Pompeo and other Trump administration officials


FILE PHOTO: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo speaks at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, U.S., January 12, 2021. Andrew Harnik/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo

BEIJING (Reuters) - China has imposed sanctions on 28 U.S. indivduals including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo over “crazy actions that have gravely interfered in China’s internal affairs”, its foreign ministry said in the early hours of Thursday, Beijing time.

These individuals and their immediate family members are prohibited from entering the mainland of China, Hong Kong and Macao. They and companies and institutions associated with them are also restricted from doing business with China,” the ministry said in a statement.

"Over the past few years, some anti-China politicians in the United States, out of their selfish political interests and prejudice and hatred against China and showing no regard for the interests of the Chinese and American people, have planned, promoted and executed a series of crazy moves which have gravely interfered in China's internal affairs, undermined China's interests, offended the Chinese people, and seriously disrupted China-U.S. relations," the ministry said.

The move comes just one day after Pompeo issued a forceful statement accusing China of committing genocide against Muslim Uighurs and other minority groups in its Xinjiang region, for which the U.S. sanctioned several Chinese officials in July.

That was one of numerous instances of sanctions, visa bans and trade restrictions imposed on Chinese politicians and Communist Party officials in the Trump administration's final year. Relations between the U.S. and China deteriorated considerably under the previous administration, which took an unusually confrontational approach. Pompeo and other officials referred to China as constituting America's greatest threat, as NPR's John Ruwitch has reported.

In fact, Bolton appeared to celebrate the sanction against him, calling it "great news" in a tweet posted Wednesday afternoon.

"I accept this prestigious recognition of my unrelenting efforts to defend American freedom," he wrote.

It is unclear what changes Biden plans, but Ruwitch noted, "Even if the Biden team moves swiftly to put the U.S.-China relationship back on a less antagonistic track, Beijing will be wary after the dramatic changes of the past four years."

 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
870
Likes
883
Country flag
I just love the attitude the Chinks got.

We must start taking similar actions against states especially US/UK when they speak in our internal affairs and also start highlighting on the similar issues in their issues.

We have always tried to avoid confrontation (by not speaking on their matters) with others who interfere in our affairs on the name of freedom, secularism, humanism bla bla blah... which is why we remain only a regional power. We won't have great returns from policy of no interference.

We are rising, we should expect and deal with issues that we are gonna face on international issues. It's not a hard thing to sanction UK and US politicians and other state entities speaking adversely to our interests. Gotta be bold and learn a few good qualities that Chinese posses. When will we take lead?
 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
870
Likes
883
Country flag
How space became the next ‘great power’ contest between the U.S. and China


Gen. Jay Raymond, chief of space operations, presents then-U.S. President Donald Trump with the official flag of the space force in the Oval Office at the White House in May last year. | SAMUEL CORUM / THE NEW YORK TIMES

by William J. Broad
The New York Times

Beijing’s rush for anti-satellite arms began 15 years ago. Now, it can threaten the orbital fleets that give the United States military its technological edge. Advanced weapons at China’s military bases can fire warheads that smash satellites and laser beams with a potential to blind arrays of delicate sensors.

And its cyberattacks can, at least in theory, cut off the Pentagon from contact with fleets of satellites that track enemy movements, relay communications among troops and provide information for the precise targeting of smart weapons.

Among the most important national security issues now facing President Joe Biden is how to contend with the threat that China poses to the U.S. military in space and, by extension, terrestrial forces that rely on the overhead platforms.

The Biden administration has yet to indicate what it plans to do with President Donald Trump’s legacy in this area: the U.S. Space Force, a new branch of the military that has been criticized as an expensive and ill-advised escalation that could lead to a dangerous new arms race.

Trump presented the initiative as his own, and it now suffers from an association with him and remains the brunt of jokes on television. But its creation was also the culmination of strategic choices by his predecessors, Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, to counter an emboldened China that raised bipartisan alarm.

There’s been a dawning realization that our space systems are quite vulnerable,” said Greg Grant, a Pentagon official in the Obama administration who helped devise its response to China. “The Biden administration will see more funding — not less — going into space defense and dealing with these threats.”

The protective goal is to create an American presence in orbit so resilient that, no matter how deadly the attacks, it will function well enough for the military to project power halfway around the globe in terrestrial reprisals and counterattacks. That could deter Beijing’s strikes in the first place. The hard question is how to achieve that kind of strong deterrence.

Lloyd J. Austin III, a retired four-star army general who was confirmed last week as Biden’s secretary of defense, told the Senate that he would keep a “laserlike focus” on sharpening the country’s “competitive edge” against China’s increasingly powerful military. Among other things, he called for new American strides in building “space-based platforms” and repeatedly referred to space as a war-fighting domain.

“Space is already an arena of great power competition,” Austin said, with China “the most significant threat going forward.”

The new administration has shown interest in tapping the innovations of space entrepreneurs as a means of strengthening the military’s hand — what Austin in his Senate testimony called “partnerships with commercial space entities.” The Obama and Trump administrations both adopted that strategy as a uniquely American way of sharpening the military’s edge.

Experts clash on whether the United States is doing too little or too much. Defense hawks had lobbied for decades for the creation of a military space corps and called for more spending on weapons.

But arms controllers see the space force as raising global tensions and giving Beijing an excuse to accelerate its own threatening measures. Some go further and call it a precipitous move that will increase the likelihood of war.

In decades past, especially during the “Star Wars” program of the Reagan administration, conflict in space was often portrayed as shootouts in orbit. That has changed. With few exceptions, the weapons are no longer seen as circling the planet but as being deployed from secure bases. So, too, the targets are no longer swarms of nuclear warheads but fleets of satellites, whose recurring, predictable paths while orbiting the Earth make them far easier to destroy.

A main question is whether the anti-satellite moves and countermoves will lower or raise the risks of miscalculation and war. That debate is just beginning.



Beijing’s surge

For years, the Chinese studied — with growing anxiety — the U.S. military, especially its invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. The battlefield successes were seen as rooted in space dominance. Planners noted that thousands of satellite-guided bombs and cruise missiles had rained down with devastating precision on Taliban forces and Iraqi defenses.

While the Pentagon’s edge in orbital assets was clearly a threat to China, planners argued that it might also represent a liability.

“They saw how the U.S. projected power,” said Todd Harrison, a space analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. “And they saw that it was largely undefended.”

China began its anti-satellite tests in 2005. It fired two missiles in two years and then made headlines in 2007 by shattering a derelict weather satellite. There was no explosion. The inert warhead simply smashed into the satellite at blinding speed. The successful test reverberated globally because it was the first such act of destruction since the Cold War.

The whirling shards, more than 150,000 in all, threatened satellites as well as the International Space Station. Ground controllers raced to move dozens of spacecraft and astronauts out of harm’s way.

The Bush administration initially did little. Then, in a show of force meant to send Beijing a message, in 2008, it fired a sophisticated missile to shoot down one of its own satellites.


Then-U.S. President Donald Trump presents his executive order to establish the space force at the White House in Washington in June 2018. | TOM BRENNER / THE NEW YORK TIMES

Beijing conducted about a dozen more tests, including ones in which warheads shot much higher, in theory putting most classes of U.S. spacecraft at risk.

China also sought to diversify its anti-satellite force. A warhead could take hours to reach a high orbit, potentially giving U.S. forces time for evasive or retaliatory action. Moreover, the speeding debris from a successful attack might endanger Beijing’s own spacecraft.

In tests, China began firing weak laser beams at satellites and studying other ways to strike at the speed of light. However, all the techniques were judged as requiring years and perhaps decades of development.

Then came the new idea. Every aspect of U.S. space power was controlled from the ground by powerful computers. If penetrated, the brains of Washington’s space fleets might be degraded or destroyed. Such attacks, compared with every other anti-satellite move, were also remarkably inexpensive.

In 2005, China began to incorporate cyberattacks into its military exercises, primarily in first strikes against enemy networks. Increasingly, its military doctrine called for paralyzing early attacks.

In 2008, hackers seized control of a civilian imaging satellite named Terra that orbited low, like the military’s reconnaissance craft. They did so twice — first in June and again in October — roaming control circuits with seeming impunity. Remarkably, in both cases, the hackers achieved all the necessary steps to command the spacecraft but refrained from doing so, apparently to reduce their fingerprints.

Space officials were troubled by more than China’s moves and weapons. The modern history of the U.S. military centered on building global alliances. Beijing was rushing ahead as an aggressive loner, and many officers feared that Washington was too hidebound and burdened with the responsibilities of coalition-building and arms-control treaties to react quickly.

“The Chinese are starting from scratch,” Paul S. Szymanski, a veteran analyst of space warfare, argued in an air force journal. They’re not, he added, “hindered by long space traditions.”

Washington’s response

In
its second term, the Obama administration made public what it called an “offset strategy” to respond to China and other threats by capitalizing on America’s technological edge.

Just as the United States had developed, first, a vast nuclear arsenal and, second, smart weapons, this so-called third offset would seek an advantage by speeding the rise of robotics, high-speed arms and other breakthroughs that could empower the armed forces for decades.

Unlike earlier offsets, officials said, the objective was to rely less on federal teams than the tech entrepreneurs who were fast transforming the civilian world.

“We must really capture the commercial sector,” Robert O. Work, a deputy secretary of defense, said in a 2015 speech explaining the new initiative.

The advances in space were to be defensive: swarms of small, relatively cheap satellites and fleets of recycled launchers that would overwhelm Beijing with countless targets. For Obama, innovative leaps were to do for U.S. space forces what Steve Jobs did for terrestrial gadgets, running circles around the calcified ministries of authoritarian states.

After decades in which adversaries — from stateless terrorists to those with traditional militaries — sought to exploit narrow advantages over the more powerful United States, the Pentagon was now finding an unconventional edge all its own.

The Obama administration was already applying the commercial philosophy to NASA, turning the space agency into a major funder of entrepreneurial strides. It was pumping billions of dollars into the development of private rockets and capsules meant to carry astronauts into orbit.

The military joined in. The beneficiaries included Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla, and Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon. Their space companies — Musk’s SpaceX and Bezos’ Blue Origin — sought to turn rocket launchers from throwaways into recyclables, slashing their cost.

Military officials believed that the new system would make it possible to quickly replace satellites in times of war.


Then-U.S. President Barack Obama tours a launch pad with SpaceX CEO Elon Musk at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida in April 2010. | LUKE SHARRETT / THE NEW YORK TIMES

The third offset also sought to shrink the size of satellites. Over decades, the big ones had grown into behemoths. Some cost $1 billion or more to design, construct, outfit, launch and keep in service. One type unfurled an antenna nearly as large as a football field. But civilians, inspired by the iPhone revolution, were building spacecraft as small as loaves of bread.

Military planners saw smaller, cheaper, more numerous craft as making anti-satellite targeting vastly more difficult — in some cases impossible — for an adversary.

The initiative aided companies such as Planet Labs, which sought to build hundreds of tiny Earth-observing satellites, and Capella Space, which designed small radar-imaging satellites meant to see through clouds. It also bolstered SpaceX, where Musk envisioned a fleet of thousands of communication satellites.

The administration, increasingly worried about Beijing’s strides, also raised its spending on offensive space control — without saying exactly what that meant.

Federal investment in the tech entrepreneurs totaled $7.2 billion, most of it during the Obama years, according to a NASA report. It said the funds went to 67 companies. The approach differed from the usual Pentagon method, which dictated terms to contractors. Instead, the private sector led the way. As predicted, the small investments made a big difference.

By the end of the Obama administration, SpaceX was firing payloads into space and successfully returning booster rockets to Earth in soft landings.

Obama tweeted his congratulations in April 2016 when, for the first time, a SpaceX booster landed successfully on a platform at sea.

Two years later, Trump unveiled the space force, prompting jokes on Twitter and late-night television and even a Netflix sitcom. But in March, the unit said it had taken possession of its first offensive weapon, calling the event historic. Based on land, the system fires energy beams to disrupt spacecraft. Lt. Col. Steve Brogan, a space combat specialist, said the acquisition “puts the ‘force’ in space force and is critical for space as a war-fighting domain.”

The Trump administration last year asked Congress for a start on what it called counter-space weapons, putting their expected cost at many hundreds of millions of dollars. The military’s classified budget for the offensive abilities is said to run much higher. In word and deed, the administration also backed new reliance on the swarms of commercial strides.

Trump officials described their steps as a response not only to Beijing’s progress but its plans. In 2019, the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency warned that China appeared to be deploying a new generation of extremely powerful lasers that could flash to life by the middle of this decade, putting new classes of American satellites at risk.

Analysts say the Biden administration might keep the Space Force, which has bipartisan support in Congress. Military experts see its high profile as sending Beijing a clear message.

“You have to have an organizational constituency,” said James E. Cartwright, a retired Marine Corps general and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007 to 2011. “That’s starting to happen. You’ve got a new emphasis on space — on people who get up every day thinking about how to manage these threats.”

Gravity’s pull

The stars of the current space age include not only famous entrepreneurs but a new generation of unknown dreamers and doers.

Developing states, small companies and even high schools are now lofting spacecraft into orbit. New Zealand hosts a spaceport. Turkey and Peru have their own spy satellites. Tiny Luxembourg runs more satellites than Spain, Italy or Germany. India in 2019 fired an anti-satellite weapon into orbit. Last year, Iran launched its first military satellite.

The United States leads in satellite tallies, mainly because of its space-age legacies and its many entrepreneurs, including those now aiding the military. The Union of Concerned Scientists, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, currently lists 1,425 for the United States, 382 for China and 172 for Russia.


The Long March-5 Y5 rocket, carrying the Chang’e-5 lunar probe, takes off from Wenchang Space Launch Center in Wenchang, in China’s Hainan province, on Nov. 24. | REUTERS

But China is pushing hard. For three years in a row, it has fired more rockets into space than any other country. It is now a dominating force, analysts say. The rush includes not only anti-satellite weapons but many other military and scientific projects, as suggested by its recent retrieval of moon rocks.

In June, Chinese scientists reported new progress in using quantum physics to build what appeared to be the world’s first unbreakable information link between an orbiting craft and its controllers. Laser beams carried the messages. The test raised the prospect that Beijing might one day possess a super-secure network for global communications.

That same month, China finished deploying the last of 35 navigation satellites, the completion of a third-generation network intended to give its military new precision in conducting terrestrial strikes.

A rugged area of mountains and deserts in northwestern China hosts a tidy complex of buildings with large roofs that can open to the sky. Recently, analysts identified the site in the Xinjiang region as one of five military bases whose lasers can fire beams of concentrated light at U.S. reconnaissance satellites, blinding or disabling their fragile optic sensors.

Biden is inheriting a range of responses to Beijing’s anti-satellite moves, including arms both offensive and defensive, initiatives both federal and commercial, and orbital acts both conspicuous and subtle. Analysts call the situation increasingly delicate.

Work, the third-offset official from the Obama era, and Grant, his former Pentagon colleague, warned in a report that Beijing might eventually beat Washington at its own game.

The Soviets were never able to match, much less overcome, America’s technological superiority,” they wrote. “The same may not be true for China.

 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
870
Likes
883
Country flag
Beijing was rushing ahead as an aggressive loner,
This is why I admire Zhōngguó and Zhōngwén .

The Soviets were never able to match, much less overcome, America’s technological superiority,” they wrote. “The same may not be true for China.
Well soviets couldn't match them for they had minds from world over working for them including Indians and Chinese.
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
13,996
Likes
29,744
Country flag
How space became the next ‘great power’ contest between the U.S. and China
Not by a long shot for now, China can't even do a fraction of space capabilities possessed by US and EU.
Do we have some catch up to do here? Where do we stand at the moment? Space Genius @Indx TechStyle
9 countries in the world have capability of launching things into orbit and have produced microsatellite launchers.
Only 6 out of these 9 (referred as major space powers); US, EU (France), Russia, Japan, China and India have larger rockets capable of launching useful heavy satellites, have launched exploration probes to moon and other planets and have large fleets of operational satellites. The gap in capabilities of these agencies is relatively thin and is reflected in their budgets and experience. So catching up with these isn't a big deal technologically for India. But rather producing as much as quantity of rockets they produce yearly is.

All of these have medium space rockets for long. US and Russia have possessed heavy launchers for long too, France got Ariane 5 much later, Japanese H-2A, Chinese CZ-5 and Indian IHLV (coming after 2025). US was only country to ever have an operational Super-heavy rocket which is an essential for manned missions to moon and mars.
  • All of these 6 countries have cryogenic engines operational.
  • All of these 6 countries have sent extraterrestrial probes.
  • India and Japan are yet to but will soon introduce heavy lift launch vehicles. Other 4 have them already.
  • China has largest number of officially operational satellites as well as highest launch frequency (number of launches per year) upto 30 launches/annum. US and Russia are almost 20/annum each while India, Japan and EU all lie at 8-10/annum each.
  • US, Russia and China have human spaceflight capabilities and space station while India is closest runner up in case of becoming next so. EU never shown interest in human missions while Japanese got dormant after American corporation.
  • US, Russia and EU have various interplanetary and lunar probes. China so far has shown interest only in moon. Japan is more on asteroids with EU following it to land on an asteroid. India has broader exploration program like that of EU of moon, Mars, Jupiter, asteroidal research but with a budget of just 30% of EU has. Hence, delays.
  • Besides these "great powers", Israel, Iran and North Korea are notable countries at a stage where it India was in 80s, small rockets like SLV. South Korea, Brazil and Turkey may too enter list in few years.


 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 29, 2015
Messages
13,996
Likes
29,744
Country flag
Beijing was rushing ahead as an aggressive loner,
"Aggressive loner" failed miserably in its FSW satellite program just after putting a human in space as a short term goal in 70s.

They had full American support after Sino-Soviet split that US every year donated tonnes to them for budgeting and in fact literally sent drawings which helped them to develop rockets. They got a GSLV Mk3 class rocket in early 90s despite fact that they were struggling to make even a PSLV class a short while ago. Clinton specially extended waivers to facilitate transfer of space tech to China during his tenure.

This link has all the details

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/timeless/how-china-conquered-america746/

February 15, 1996. A Chinese Long March 3B carrying a $200 million Loral satellite explodes 22 seconds after lilftoff.

March 14, 1996. President Clinton shifts control over regulating the export of communications satellites from the State Dept. which was primarily concerned with national security aspects of such exports, to the Commerce Dept., which is concerned with the economic benefits.

May 10, 1996. The Loral-led review commission investigating the February rocket explosion completes and passes on to Chinese officials its report, which according to the April 13, 1998 New York Times, discusses “sensitive aspects of the rocket’s guidance and control systems, which is an area of weakness in China’s missile programs.” The New York Times says that a Pentagon report concludes that, as a result of this technology transfer, “United States national security has been harmed”.

May 23, 1996. President Clinton calls for renewal of MFN for China, saying that renewal would not be “a referendum on all China’s policies,” but “a vote for America’s interests.”

June 8, 1996. China conducts an underground nuclear test.

July 21, 1996. Johnny Chung, according to the New York Times, brings Liu Chao-ying to two DNC fundraisers, including a $25,000 per couple dinner. Liu Chao-ying is a Lieutenant Colonel in the People’s Liberation Army and an executive at China Aerospace, which owns the Great Wall Industry Corp. that makes Long March rockets. Her father is the top commander of Chinese military forces. The New York Times says that Chung has told the Justice Dept. that Liu gave him the better part of $100,000 he contributed to the DNC in the latter part of 1996, and that the source of the money was the PLA.

July 29, 1996. China declares a moratorium on nuclear testing after conducting another nuclear test.

August 8, 1996. According to AP, Clinton meets again with Long Beach officials to advocate turning over the naval base to COSCO.

September 24, 1996. At the UN, President Clinton joins with the foreign ministers of China, France, Russia and Great Britain in signing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty forbidding all testing of nuclear weapons.

November 5, 1996. President Clinton wins reelection. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the single largest Democratic donor during the election cycle was Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz, who gave $632,000 in ‘soft money’ to the Democratic Party between 1995 and 1996. The State Dept. issues regulations shifting responsibility for satellite launching licenses to the Commerce Dept.

January 1997. The Panamanian government awards the contract to operate the Atlantic and Pacific ports of the Panama Canal to a Hong Kong company, Hutchison Whampoa. China takes control of Hong Kong six months later. The United States, which is set to relinquish control of the canal next year, does not protest.

March 25, 1997. While in Beijing for a meeting with Premier Li Peng and President Jiang Zemin, Vice President Gore attends signing ceremonies for Boeing’s $685 million sale of five jetliners to China’s state-owned Civil Aviation Administration as well as a $1.3 billion joint venture between General Motors and China’s state-owned Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp.

May 1997. According to the April 13, 1998 New York Times, a classified Pentagon report reveals that Hughes and Loral scientists “had turned over expertise that significantly improved the reliability of China’s nuclear missiles” following the February 1996 rocket explosion. Hughes and Loral deny the New York Times report when it is published in 1998.

May 19, 1997. President Clinton announces that he will authorize MFN renewal for China.

October 1997. Chinese President Jiang Zemin makes a state visit to the United States. During the trip, he stops at a Hughes site to discuss satellites.

January 15, 1998. After China promises that it will no longer aid Iran’s nuclear program, President Clinton certifies that China is a reliable partner for nuclear technology exchange.

February 19, 1998. Despite opposition from the Justice Dept, President Clinton signs a waiver approving the launch of a Loral satellite from a Chinese rocket and reportedly authorizing the transfer of the same type of technology that the Pentagon said had “harmed” US security and that the Justice Dept. was investigation Loral and Hughes for their illegally transferring in 1996.
The same Bill Clinton was acerbic and vitriolic after our nuke tests in 1998 and put us under heavy sanctions.
This is why I admire Zhōngguó and Zhōngwén .

The Soviets were never able to match, much less overcome, America’s technological superiority,” they wrote. “The same may not be true for China.
Well soviets couldn't match them for they had minds from world over working for them including Indians and Chinese.
Precisely, Soviets weren't able to match American money what China may be capable of do. As for technologically, they had tested this shit successfully for real, payload capacity was 100 tonnes to LEO.

629px-ENERGIJA.png


After more than 50 years of moon landing, Soviet rocket Energia is only credible challenger of Saturn-V which ever came into existence. European, Chinese and Indian designs are yet to move beyond papers. If funding wouldn't have stopped because of collapse of Soviet Union, Soviets too would have landed humans on moon between 1995-2005.

Soviets even studied way bigger series of ultra-heavy lift rockets, literally giant starships and everything was constrained by Soviet budgets.

Damn, US and USSR were light years ahead of their time during cold war!
When few countries could even dream of launching probes, having aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines or nukes, they had thousands of nukes, dozens of carriers, 200 submarines, thousands of satellites and finally mammoth rockets with 50-150 tonnes paylod cap..
 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
870
Likes
883
Country flag
In tests, China began firing weak laser beams at satellites and studying other ways to strike at the speed of light. However, all the techniques were judged as requiring years and perhaps decades of development.
We working on above too or atleast plan to, right.

And its cyberattacks can, at least in theory, cut off the Pentagon from contact with fleets of satellites that track enemy movements, relay communications among troops and provide information for the precise targeting of smart weapons.
In 2008, hackers seized control of a civilian imaging satellite named Terra that orbited low, like the military’s reconnaissance craft. They did so twice — first in June and again in October — roaming control circuits with seeming impunity. Remarkably, in both cases, the hackers achieved all the necessary steps to command the spacecraft but refrained from doing so, apparently to reduce their fingerprints.
We good at cyberattacks and hacking?
 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
870
Likes
883
Country flag
While Jack Dorsey endorses Rihanna’s anti-India tweet, Twitter pulls down Kangana Ranaut’s tweet on ‘farmers’ protest over violation

Hours after Jack Dorsey, the CEO of the micro-blogging site was caught validating tweets which hailed Hollywood singer-actress Rihanna for endorsing violence in the name of supporting ‘farmer’ protests, the micro-blogging site removed tweet by actor Kangana Ranaut where she spoke against the farmers’ protest which has laid siege to Delhi for over 71 days.



While removing the tweet, the microblogging site, which has never quite hidden its leftist bias, said that her tweet was violating the company’s rules. “We have taken action on Tweets that were in violation of the Twitter Rules in line with our range of enforcement options,” the microblogging website said in a statement.


The action comes two days after Kangana Ranaut had expressed her vexation over Rihanna’s Tweet, which was a clear intervention into India’s domestic politics.

On February 2, singer-actress Rihanna, along with former porn-star Mia Khalifa and child protestors such as Greta Thunberg, interfered in the country’s internal affair by endorsing violence in the name of supporting ‘farmer’ protests. The statements of these celebrities were used by various political heads like pro-Khalistan Canadian MP Jagmeet Singh.


After, Rihanna posted her Tweet, regular detractors jumped at the opportunity to hail the actor-singer’s intervention in support of the protestors in India, who have now been accused of unleashing massive violence on the streets of the national capital.

 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
870
Likes
883
Country flag
Global Conspiracy Against India: Rihanna and Greta Thunberg tweets were planned well in advance, reveals Greta Files


On the 2nd of February, environmental activist and baby-protestor Greta Thunberg and Rihanna tweeted in favour of the so-called farmers who have been protesting at the borders of Delhi for the past almost 3 months. It was these ‘protests’ that had taken a violent turn and the result, on the 26th of January, was a planned insurrection where these protestors and Khalistanis overtook the Red Fort, hoisted religious flags and indulged in widespread violence.


After tweeting in support, Greta Thunberg inadvertently revealed the sinister global campaign against India after she shared a ‘Toolkit’ for those who want to support the ongoing ‘farmer protests’ in the country. While the ‘Toolkit’ was deleted shortly after and a sanitised version was tweeted again later by Greta, the cat was already out of the bag.


On first glance, what the documents revealed was that the farmers’ protest and the support it seemed to get from various quarters was in no way organic, as many wanted Indians to believe. As we reported, the documents tweeted by Greta Thunberg revealed that the plan was afoot since November 2020, at the very least.


The document shared by Greta Thunberg listed a series of actions that people across the world could take to support the ‘farmer protests’ and also listed actions that had been undertaken. The document also made it clear that the global attempts to incite unrest in India had begun prior to the Republic Day riots. The document also contained several sets of pre-determined tweets that were supposed to be tweeted and when OpIndia searched, some of those tweets were posted on Twitter on November 2020, verbatim.


Interestingly, while several ‘actions’ were planned in advance, a closer look at one of the documents embedded in the ‘toolkit’ also reveals that the tweets by singer-performer Rihanna and baby-activist Greta Thunberg were also pre-planned and not organic.


One of the documents embedded in the toolkit, titled ‘Solidarity with Indian farmers – Twitter storm’ contains meticulous planning about the tweets to be posted to ‘garner international attention’ to the ‘farmer protest’. In that document, that was created well before 3rd February, two influencers were mentioned who were going to ‘extend their support’ to the protest in India. One was Rihanna and the other was Greta Thunberg.


In a meticulous sheet, the plan indicates what to tweet, whom to tag while tweeting and also, whom to target. Beyond that, it also mentions that the tweet storm planned will be getting support from Rihanna and Greta Thunberg.


In the following list of sample tweets, it clearly lists the content that Rihanna is supposed to tweet.



Interestingly, this was exactly the tweet posted by Rihanna on the 2nd of February.

To get some perspective on the scale of planning, let us get some basic facts on the record.


Rihanna tweeted her support to the violent protests on the 2nd of February and Greta Thunberg tweeted on the wee morning (around 1:30 AM) on 3rd February. Both of them were mentioned in this document and used the exact hashtag that the document wanted to publicise – #FarmersProtest.


Now, the document itself actually planned for ‘tweet storms’ on the 4th of 5th of February.

It stands to reason that since this document mentions Rihanna’s tweet, the document was made well before Rihanna and Greta Thunberg tweeted and therefore, the tweet by the two international celebrities was planned and not spontaneous.


We made way for the possibility that perhaps the tweet by Rihanna was added only after she tweeted. However, it is important to note that Rihanna tweeted a mere 4 hours before Greta Thunberg tweeted the ‘toolkit’, therefore, it seems unlikely that Rihanna’s tweet would be added at the top of the tweet list if was added in a span of those 4 hours. If Rihanna’s tweet was added after she tweeted and before Greta tweeted, in all likelihood, it would be added at the end of the tweet list, not at the beginning.


Further, if one looks at the list, all the other sample tweet have a ’embedded link’ that when clicked, takes one to Twitter, with the tweet already written, ready to tweet.


Sample this.



Rihanna’s tweet is second in the document. The tweet before it and the one after it has a “click here to tweet” embed. That link is missing in Rihanna’s tweet.


When one clicks on the embed, it takes one to one’s Twitter page, with the content ready to tweet.


The fact that Rihanna’s tweet format did not have a link that takes one directly to her tweet (even to RT) proves that perhaps it was not content that was added after Rihanna herself tweeted. That coupled with the fact that Rihanna’s content is the second in the list, and if it was added later, it would be in the end and not at the beginning, lends credence to the fact that the tweets by Greta and Rihanna were planned well in advance.


One cannot be sure if Rihanna and Greta Thunberg were asked to Tweet by Canadian Khalistani MP Jagmeet Singh or they were approached via some PR agency. We had reported earlier that Rihanna and Jagmeet Singh are in contact and on friendly terms and therefore, the likelihood of Rihanna tweeting after his request is high.


However, it becomes evident that the propaganda against India was closely coordinated and planned well in advance with the help of several entities inside and outside India. What is telling is that in one of the documents, the propagandists specifically mention that even if the farm laws are repealed, the protests were too continue. Therefore, it becomes rather clear that the protests were not so much about the farm laws alone but about creating mayhem in India to target the Modi government and tarnish India’s image globally.

 

Marliii

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2020
Messages
533
Likes
1,569
Country flag
These brits and all the other european idiots who still live in their colonial white mans burden ideas.UK is not even now middle power and their MP s are acting as if india will listen to britain.I technically hate the chinese government and not the people but we cannot blame the chinese the europeans idiots particularly the idiot who still thinks about 4th riech aka germany are the real leftist craps who have to neutralised.
 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
870
Likes
883
Country flag
Opindia should be a bit more careful in description. It should be more like conspiracy on Gloabal scale or just name the powers involved. The globe that includes several malnourished, poor, starving, underdeveloped nations aren't conspiring against India but they may still be used against us as well as their own. They lack the means and motivation to do so but can be a tool for 'powers' who posses this ability. Who would possess such means? Let's see ...

1) The United Invaders of Americas occupying The Native's land/state (mistakenly called USA),
2) Canada (pet dog brothers of the same invader),
3) Chinese Communist Party that is striving to emulate their American-European counterparts in their savagery.
4) Russians and America's European allys (may not be as anti India as the above but have the means and purpose to inflitrate).
 

Marliii

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2020
Messages
533
Likes
1,569
Country flag
Opindia should be a bit more careful in description. It should be more like conspiracy on Gloabal scale or just name the powers involved. The globe that includes several malnourished, poor, starving, underdeveloped nations aren't conspiring against India but they may still be used against us as well as their own. They lack the means and motivation to do so but can be a tool for 'powers' who posses this ability. Who would possess such means? Let's see ...

1) The United Invaders of Americas occupying The Native's land/state (mistakenly called USA),
2) Canada (pet dog brothers of the same invader),
3) Chinese Communist Party that is striving to emulate their American-European counterparts in their savagery.
4) Russians and America's European allys (may not be as anti India as the above but have the means and purpose to inflitrate).
And the germans who dream of a third riech and british who still think they are a power. these guys have to be included.
 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
870
Likes
883
Country flag
The prospect of Indians rising is unsettling to the current world order trying to keep their hold on internal affairs of native matters using their usual tactics using people who know shit about world matters.

While removing the tweet, the microblogging site, which has never quite hidden its leftist bias, said that her tweet was violating the company’s rules.
This isn't leftist bias. This is planned conspiracy against India and all rising and developing nations by these wannabe powers who just can't assimilate or tolerate equality with others who selectively decide who to support and oppose to keep natives fight natives (necessary to maintain their grip on world affairs and also escape any question on their own). We need to stop addressing the supporters and opposers as leftist and rightists.
Rather represent them as informed and uninformed. The left-right tag leads to accusations against one another, while the informed-uninformed/disinformed tag would lead to healthy debate on finding out the truth of matter.


Gotta break legs of these pseudo-humanitarian sates to end their world exploitation. We need censorship of Chinese level to deal with them in India. And also teach about them to Indian students the way Chinese do educate their kids about most outsiders where they describe all foreigners as barbarians.

Twitter ban is a must along with an Indian alternative. Same for Youtube, Facebook etc where much of youth India remains addicted.
 

Marliii

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2020
Messages
533
Likes
1,569
Country flag
We need our own systems. But twitter is must go.it is full of white supremacist s and paki trolls.banning youtube will effect some people who make living out of it.but youtube must be censored some what.
 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
870
Likes
883
Country flag
Project Force: Is India a military superpower or a Paper Tiger?
After decades of under-investment, India’s military forces have been in decline, but it isn’t all bad news for the country.

By Alex Gatopoulos

India’s strategic position has changed dramatically over the past decade. Traditionally fixated on its chief rival, Pakistan, India is now concerned about the striking and rapid modernisation of China’s armed forces.
With a weak air force that is under-strength, an army still bogged down with strategic ideas formed in the last century and a navy that looks good on paper but is being comprehensively outclassed by China’s navy, India is finally coming to terms with its own inadequacies.

After last year’s stand-off between the two countries in Ladakh, India has launched a crash programme designed to address these failings and to play to the several strengths its military does possess.

The Ladakh region is sandwiched between the Karakoram mountain range in the north and the Zanskar range to the south. Pakistan forms its western border and China is to its east. Despite the arid and rugged terrain, it has been part of the Silk Route for centuries and has been fought over at various times by the Persians, Tibetans and Russians, all to control the mountain passes vital for access and trade. India, China and Pakistan all have vested economic and strategic interests in this important region. Ladakh also borders Indian-administered Kashmir, with both Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh having become formal parts of India in 2019.

It is no surprise, then, that this region has been the flashpoint for several conflicts and the epicentre of the latest clashes between India and China.

India has significant advantages and disadvantages in any potential conflict over this vital region.

Air force in a sorry state

Bureaucracy, major procurement issues, inter-service squabbling over a shrinking defence budget and successive governments repeatedly switching the strategic focus between Pakistan and China have left the military meandering in its focus.

As the lion’s share of defence budgets has traditionally gone to the army, the Indian air force has suffered and is now seriously under-strength. At full strength, it operates with 42 squadrons, but it can currently only field 31.


Aircraft such as the MiG-21, which entered service in 1964, should have been retired years ago, but are still flying and are easy targets for any contemporary aircraft. This was brought into focus in the 2019 Kashmir stand-off when Pakistani F-16s shot down an Indian MiG-21 that had attempted to intercept them. The pilot was subsequently captured and paraded on Pakistani television, much to India’s embarrassment.


The latest skirmish with China in 2020 forced the Indian government into a crash procurement programme to shore up its air force.


The Indian Air Force’s Rafale fighter jets fly past during the “Aero India 2021” air show at Yelahanka air base in Bengaluru, India on February 3, 2021 [File: Samuel Rajkumar/Reuters]

Thirty-six French multi-role Rafale fighters were already in the works, the first five of which were delivered in July last year. Twelve Sukhoi MKI-30 and 21 MiG-29 fighter jets have also been ordered – the former to be built under licence in India and the latter ordered from Russia with a whole range of other arms, especially ammunition. While some of the equipment is in stock and can be sent within the next few months, the building of dozens of advanced fighter jets will take several years.

The new Rafale fighters will help. Highly advanced and capable, they have been fitted with “cold start” engines to make it easier for them to be scrambled from freezing, high-altitude, forward bases, all positioned near the sources of any potential conflict in the north of the country.


Despite these stop-gap improvements, India’s air force remains seriously depleted. However, it is not the only service going through strategic convulsions.


Upgrading a neglected army

The army is the senior service in India’s military and has, traditionally, been armour-heavy with over 3,500 main battle tanks in its arsenal. By contrast, Pakistan fields 2,400. Most of the tanks in India’s inventory are Russian-built with over 1,000 of the modern T-90s in operation.


The attempt to build an indigenous tank – the Arjun – ended in disaster. Three decades in the making, cost overruns and massive bureaucratic delays produced a tank that is too heavy, unwieldy and prone to mechanical failure.

The army was forced by the government to buy 124 of these tanks to keep the state manufacturer happy. Despite attempted modifications, Indian defence procurers still favour Russian equipment, which is both familiar and reliable. Russia and India are in discussions for India to buy the ultra-modern T-14 Armata main battle tank in the near future.

Still mired in an older strategic style that relies heavily on armoured thrusts by mass formations of tanks, India’s defence planners have been slow to wake up to the fact that warfare is changing dramatically, along with its enemies and how they will fight. Only recently has there been deeper cooperation between the armed services and joint operations now run using cyber and space assets, along with a greater emphasis on special forces and long-range precision strike weapons.



With the downturn in its relations with China, India’s strategic position has changed sharply for the worse and its defence doctrine has not fully adapted to this change.


India still focuses on shock tactics using the Cold Start Doctrine, which proposes a short, sharp, armoured assault through the middle of Pakistan, quickly cutting the country in two, before Pakistan’s neighbours and the international community can react.


A conflict with China would be a very different matter in the savagely cold, mountainous terrain of the Himalayas, where concentrations of tanks cannot move with the same freedom. Such a war would be fought with troops specialised in high-altitude warfare, precision strike weapons and mobile artillery. Airpower would be key as would the ability to operate in bad weather at high altitude.


It’s not all bad news for India. The country possesses 21 satellites, at least half of which are for image and intelligence gathering, which helps greatly in getting a clear picture of what is happening in the battlespace, especially given that the potential area of operations would be remote and mountainous.


Vietnamese troops carrying part of an anti-tank gun in the Vietnamese-Chinese border area on February 22, 1979 during the first days of a Chinese invasion. It was the last war China fought [File: AP Photo]

The army has some extremely well-trained units, namely the 89,500 Indo-Tibetan Border Police and other units who are locally recruited and specialise in high-altitude warfare and guerilla operations. This is in addition to the 12 mountain divisions already deployed. Furthermore, India’s army is combat-proven, having fought several wars, whereas China’s is not. The last war China fought was in 1979 when it invaded Vietnam, withdrawing after three weeks, having suffered tens of thousands of casualties.



India’s High Command is putting the lessons learned in these past conflicts into practice, like those of the high-altitude Indo-Pakistan Kargil conflict in 1998. Better cold-weather clothing for troops has been bought, intelligence gathering has been vastly improved and a joint-service defence staff set up – vital if all branches of the military are to operate in a coordinated way.

India has sought to improve its air defences – also vital, considering its air force would be outnumbered significantly by the Chinese air force, the PLAAF.

A $5.5bn deal was signed with Russia in 2018 for five S-400 squadrons of air defence missile batteries. India is also in discussions to buy more air defence units from Israel. How these various units will work with each other and be integrated into a single air defence architecture remains to be seen, but this crash arms modernisation programme could make a real difference in any coming conflict.


Reaching out diplomatically to the United States has also reaped dividends as the two countries recently signed defence agreements allowing India to use US geospatial intelligence, encrypted communications and to purchase high-end items India sorely lacks: Overland reconnaissance aircraft, attack helicopters, heavy-lift choppers and strategic transport aircraft for the swift deployment of troops to potential combat zones.

The country is also boosting its drone inventory, buying more from Israel, its chief supplier. It is also arming 90 Israeli Heron drones already in its possession and petitioning to buy at least 20 American MQ-9 Reaper Armed drones, which are able to scan large areas of terrain, send back valuable intelligence and engage potential targets on the spot if needed.


All this will help the Indian military maintain its position in Ladakh but serious challenges remain in feeding and supplying a large army in a remote region.

Warfare in the winter

For years, both China and India have been improving their roads and bridges on either side of the Line of Actual Control, the unofficial demarcation line between India and China, in an effort to be able to better re-supply their troops in the event of a conflict. China has the advantage in this, having built high-speed rail links close to the border – railways being vital for maintaining the high levels of supplies and ammunition needed for any military offensive. It has improved its road system to its border posts and laboured to build heated accommodation for its troops, with winter temperatures plunging to -30 degrees Celsius (-22 Fahrenheit).


Supplies are unloaded from an Indian military transport plane at a forward airbase in Leh, in the Ladakh region, on September 15, 2020 [File: Danish Siddiqui/Reuters]

While India has sought to improve its road network in Ladakh, the mountainous terrain puts it at a disadvantage. Drinkable water is also an issue as most sources freeze and those that remain are brackish. Water supplies, therefore, have to be tortuously brought up by truck – an untenable proposition for the Indian army in an extended conflict.



India has significant experience in sub-zero, high-altitude warfare, particularly in the Siachen Glacier in northern Ladakh, and understands the serious logistical difficulties in supplying armed forces and sustaining them at that altitude. Helicopters can only carry a fraction of their load due to the thin atmosphere. The cost soars as helicopters have to fly many more missions in order to keep troops fed. This would be almost impossible to achieve with a much larger force in a high-intensity conflict, consuming far greater amounts of food and ammunition.


To get around this, the Indian army has been stockpiling military supplies, deploying an extra 50,000 troops, including a specialised, high-altitude mechanised corps – heavily armed and mobile units – to forward areas of eastern Ladakh high up on the strategically vital Depsang plains.


Indian army soldiers walk down the Siachen Glacier on October 4, 2003 [File: Pawel Kopczynski/Reuters]At 4,500 metres, right on the Line of Actual Control, the plains lie between Siachen Glacier and Aksai Chin and would be one of the focal points in any potential conflict between the two countries.



But war, once started, would not just be fought on the frigid heights of the Karakoram but also in the warm waters of the Indian Ocean, with naval power being vital in tipping the balance of any conflict between the two superpowers.

India’s navy

The Indian navy is in the middle of restructuring itself with a focus on projecting its combat power beyond its coastal waters, centring around the creation of three aircraft carrier groups and the 150 aircraft they would carry.

While this sounds impressive, it is unlikely to happen any time soon. The service has seen its share of the defence budget shrink from 18 percent in 2012 to 13 percent in 2020. It currently has just one aircraft carrier, the ex-Soviet INS Vikramaditya, with a second, the INS Vikrant entering sea trials and due to be inducted into the navy in early 2022.


Indian soldiers disembark from a military transport plane at a forward airbase in Leh, in the Ladakh region, on September 15, 2020 [File: Danish Siddiqui/Reuters]Costs for both have spiralled out of control and a third carrier – the INS Vishal – remains in the conceptual stage. There is also a growing debate in India, echoed around the world, that aircraft carriers are costly white elephants with limited use in any future conflict, in which smaller, swarmed, networked ships, drones and hypersonic missiles would be used.



China’s vast shipbuilding programme has paid off and the PLA Navy outclasses the Indian navy at every turn, having more and better conventional submarines, as well as larger and faster destroyers and corvettes (used for coastal patrols). Having also built up two aircraft carrier fleets of its own, the Chinese navy has also focused on small, fast, heavily armed and networked vessels that would form an integral part of any future battle plans.

Is the Indian Ocean Indian?

China’s main supply route into the South China Sea is through the Andaman Sea and the narrow Malacca Strait. A vulnerable choke-point for China, it has sought to protect itself and diversify its supply routes. This ties into its massive and ongoing infrastructure scheme the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) of which Pakistan is a vital member.


The China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has had billions of dollars of Chinese investment. Consisting of road and rail links from the port of Gwadar running all the way through Gilgit and Baltistan in the north, it will eventually join up with highways running to Kashgar in China’s Xinjiang province. This route provides a much-needed alternative to the easily disrupted choke point in the Malacca Strait, a narrow stretch of water between the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra that acts as a major shipping channel between the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

As such, China has built up massive infrastructure and port projects throughout the Indian Ocean, in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Pakistan. China has lost its battle for influence over the Maldives, where a pro-Indian president was recently voted in. It has secured listening posts in Myanmar and helped revamp that country’s port facilities, giving Chinese naval vessels potential ports of refuge and re-supply in a time of conflict.


A view from Saichen Glacier. At a height of up to 8,000 meters, Siachen has been regarded as the world’s highest battlefield [File: Behlül Çetinkaya/Anadolu]

India has developed its own web of listening posts close to the Malacca strait and recently revitalised the Quad, a four-country alliance between India, Japan, Australia and the United States, all countries concerned by China’s meteoric rise to power. In November, all four countries held combined, large-scale naval exercises in the eastern Indian Ocean, with the emphasis on realistic war games and “high-end tactical training” – a clear message to China that India would have diplomatic allies should any conflict arise.



India wouldn’t be the only one with potential support from outside, however. Pakistan is deeply tied to China not just economically but also with its military. Cooperation in aircraft manufacture has led to the development of the JF-17 Thunder, a relatively low-cost yet capable fighter jet, of which 111 now serve in the Pakistan Air Force, with more on the way. Its performance record is so successful, it is now being considered for export.


Pakistan is also jointly manufacturing China’s armed drone, the Wing Loong 2, of which Pakistan has ordered 48, to be built in part at its Aeronautical Complex in Kamra.


Alarmed by increased intelligence sharing between the US and its arch-rival, India, Pakistan has also sought to further boost its defence cooperation with China. Joint exercises, already a regular event, are expected to become more regular as both militaries practise how to operate in an increasingly coordinated way.

India’s military has been eroded by a lack of focus and changing priorities.


Clashes with China and the looming spectre of possible large-scale conflict between the two countries, with the possible involvement of Pakistan, have focused India’s attention on what it needs to fight in a future war with a chance of prevailing.


The country has finally started to address the failings it has identified and begun a crash re-armament programme to redress this strategic imbalance.


It has several strengths it is playing to. Its military has extensive combat experience, it has some excellent units and the advent of new high-tech weapons, combined with information from the US’s extensive network of military satellites, will go a long way towards helping India’s military reverse its strategic malaise.

 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
870
Likes
883
Country flag
Sinister truth about mystery flights between China and Myanmar during coup d’etat

They’re unregistered flights, taking off under cover of darkness, that China is “trying very hard to hide”. Now we might know why.

Every night for more than a week, unregistered planes have been carrying unknown goods and people between China and its conflict-ravaged neighbour Myanmar – and experts believe they might know why.

The southeast Asian nation – which shares a sprawling border with China to its northeast – is currently effectively cut off from the world as a new military regime cracks down hard on those who opposed its takeover from a democratically elected government in a brutal coup three weeks ago.

Now it appears Beijing is involved in the violence.

Speculation of China’s endorsement of the Myanmar coup first circulated earlier this month, when state-affiliated media described the takeover as nothing more than a “cabinet reshuffle”.

But as Myanmar braces for a potentially disturbing level of violence in the weeks to come, attention has been drawn to planes flying each night between Yangon International Airport and Kunming in southern China, which the military regime is now “trying very hard to hide”.

The Chinese government and Myanmar Airways have claimed the planes are simply carrying seafood exports.

“There have been false information and rumours about China on issues relating to Myanmar,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said last week, when asked if China is sending equipment and IT experts to Myanmar.

But, “the details of the flights in question make that highly unlikely” and suggest China not only knew about the takeover but sent soldiers over the border to assist the army, civil-military professional Susan Hutchinson wrote in a piece for The Strategist.



When the military – the Tatmadaw – took over, international flights were banned, Hutchinson points out, with few flights now using Yangon International Airport.

“But averaging five flights a night, up to three planes have been making trips to Kunming in southern China,” she wrote.

“Two of the planes are painted with Myanmar Airways colours and the other is unmarked. All of them are leased from private firms, so they should be in good working order.”

It’s clear, Hutchinson added, from the fact the planes’ transponders have been turned off, which is a violation of international aviation rules, and the flights not being registered online by Kunming Airport as arrivals, that “whoever has arranged these flights is going to great lengths to hide them”.

The situation in Myanmar suggests two possibilities for what the planes are carrying. One is that they’re bringing in Chinese troops and cyber specialists to help the Tatmadaw control access to the information,” she wrote.

“The other is that they’re increasing the Tatmadaw’s weapons stores.”



Protesters deface China's national flag in front of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) office on February 11. Picture: Hkun Lat/Getty ImagesSource:Getty Images


Protesters gather in front of the Chinese Embassy on February 11 in Yangon, Myanmar. Picture: Hkun Lat/Getty ImagesSource:Getty Images

China’s position as the fifth largest arms exporter in the world – exporting well over 16.2 billion units of ammunition in the last 15 years – is also telling, Hutchinson said.

“If past behaviour is a predictive of future behaviour, the prospect of violent action against minority groups and other civilians in the country increased drastically when the military took over,” she said.

“This is especially the case for the Kachin on Myanmar’s northern border with China, and the 600,000 Rohingya remaining in Rakhine State, bordering Bangladesh.

“It is common ahead of large-scale genocidal campaigns or campaigns to violently quell civil disobedience to see a sharp increase in weapons imports.”



Hutchinson noted it wouldn’t take sophisticated weaponry for the continued genocide. Picture: Mladen Antonov/AFPSource:AFP

Hutchinson noted that it wouldn’t take “particularly sophisticated weaponry for the Tatmadaw to continue its genocide of the Rohingya, but it would take volume and ammunition”, adding that Myanmar has been one of the top three importers from Beijing for the past decade.

“Kunming, in particular, is home to a significant artillery unit, the 63rd Base of the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force, as well as a range of signals intelligence and cyber units, including one focused on operations in Southeast Asia. As a regional hub, the city also has significant storage and logistics facilities and an air base.”

With the United Nations Security Council prohibited from getting involved in Myanmar – due to the influences of both China and Russia – it’s unclear whether either country “knew what Min Aung Hlaing was planning in the weeks ahead of the coup”, Hutchinson said.

But, she added, “the contents of those planes may well tell us what is ahead”.

 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
870
Likes
883
Country flag
Chinkies playing some nasty dirty great games against Burmese people. India must go to aid democratic party openly and directly.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top