New World Order: Fading and Rising World Powers

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
975
Likes
1,072
Country flag
The European Union has imposed sanctions on four Chinese officials over human rights abuses against the mostly Muslim Uighur minority group.

The announcement marks the first time the EU has sanctioned Chinese officials over human rights abuses since the Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989.

The sanctions include a freeze on the officials' assets in the EU and a ban on them travelling in the bloc.
China responded with its own sanctions on European officials. :rofl:


 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
975
Likes
1,072
Country flag
China responded with its own sanctions on European officials.
Everybody Feeling the heat from CCP China, Americans fear losing their economic and military might, India, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Vietnam fear Chinese economic and geographic encroachment, EU avoids messing with China. Only Australians and Englishmen seem to be supporting Yankees and even some Australians feeling the Scott Morrison to be unnecessarily dragging Australia into unnecessary alliance with US.

I like China's assertiveness and boldness against its European counterparts. Most of the world affairs now orbiting around China. Everyone (US, UK, Australia etc) trying to figure out how to break into China which is no longer possible and cutting off China too has huge setbacks.

China has arisen. I am delighted that Asia once again dominating global affairs. India seems a bit out of the picture but we have got a world now that is somewhat multipolar
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
10,704
Likes
5,759
Country flag
Everybody Feeling the heat from CCP China, Americans fear losing their economic and military might, India, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Vietnam fear Chinese economic and geographic encroachment, EU avoids messing with China. Only Australians and Englishmen seem to be supporting Yankees and even some Australians feeling the Scott Morrison to be unnecessarily dragging Australia into unnecessary alliance with US.

I like China's assertiveness and boldness against its European counterparts. Most of the world affairs now orbiting around China. Everyone (US, UK, Australia etc) trying to figure out how to break into China which is no longer possible and cutting off China too has huge setbacks.

China has arisen. I am delighted that Asia once again dominating global affairs. India seems a bit out of the picture but we have got a world now that is somewhat multipolar
There's nothing to welcome from the rise of pseudo communist neo imperialist China. It's mostly trouble for its neighbors much like Imperial Japan's rise in the early 20th century.
 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
975
Likes
1,072
Country flag
There's nothing to welcome from the rise of pseudo communist neo imperialist China. It's mostly trouble for its neighbors much like Imperial Japan's rise in the early 20th century.
Yes there is. Which larger power isn't and hasn't been trouble for neighbours (in past and present)? And when we are comparing the Yankees, they aren't trouble just for neighbour for but everybody has had to deal with their hegemony for quite a few decades atleast. Is China worse than our European racist counterparts who have been responsible for occupation and exploitation of all non-European natives causing fall of Asian civilisations fracturing asian economies , causing tens of million of deaths in their slave trade?

Had Philippines been as large as China or Russia or Yankees, they too would have been at odds with the neighbouring states. We need to find a way to work together. China is simply playing the same great game that was played against them and us. That doesn't mean China should be given a free pass to play the police here but their rise is a good thing for a multipolar world.

The only solution is making the world a single fully integrated union but that needs a world that has civilians and leaders who can see things from greater perspective keeping humanity's progress as their goals. Scrap the idea of hundreds of nation in favor of single larger nation where everyone would be represented and everyone truly accountable and liable for action should one act in violation of the constitution of the union.

Start by Scrapping United Nations because reforming it isn't possible with those 5 permanent thugs and even if we get a few more permanent members in the union (like Japan, India, Germany etc), it won't become more effective, that would just expand the list of hegemons who hate each other but still united for exploitation of other weaker unions and less privileged.

Now the non-permanent members can't really dissolve or reform UN. So you better make it irrelevant.
Unite ASEANS nations into one nation.
Unite SAARC into another. Unite all other major smaller and larger associations into a new complimentary union of diverse, multicultural organisation representing all barring those hegemons creating an alternate Union of Nations. Leave the UN led by P5 to discuss the matters and disputes of the members in this new union. Members would most likely need to overcome some of their differences and make some reasonable compromises in some matter but they will represent a larger geography, larger economy and larger military might and larger co-operation and progress in tech and science. If they can't, I am sure that Chinese would run over many of them, so will the Americans, The EU and the Russians. They will have themselves to blame if they can't come over their petty disputes and differences.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
4,402
Likes
1,112
Country flag
There's nothing to welcome from the rise of pseudo communist neo imperialist China.
Well, your own government doesn't agree with you. They certainly don't like Chinese military rising, but being quite happy to get on bed with China on economic side.

It's mostly trouble for its neighbors much like Imperial Japan's rise in the early 20th century.
On the contrast, imperial Japan offered no economic benefit in the time of her rising. That was why she can only forced others to join her party only by military invasion.

Chinese, on the other hand, is providing an attractive offer while US is trying to balance that with military power.
 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
975
Likes
1,072
Country flag

Why do yankees think they have monopoly on human rights? Hmmm... they have to have monopoly on it.... don't they?

How would they hide all the crimes they have committed against humanity? How would they find new excuses to invade and ravage non white world? How.... how... how would these savages survive if they don't get to exploit the weak and the helpless. Barbarians.
 

Rassil Krishnan

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2019
Messages
929
Likes
2,822
Country flag
There's nothing to welcome from the rise of pseudo communist neo imperialist China. It's mostly trouble for its neighbors much like Imperial Japan's rise in the early 20th century.
I don't hate china ideologically at all.it is usa with its wokeness that is the champion of Degeneracy around the world.we need a reverse 1945.

Currently we are playing the us against china and I am sure with the weak core of the usa,it will decline into impotence and it seems to be doing so faster than I anticipated.look at its naval budget and optimistic predictions of future vessels it can have,pathetic.india must use usa and abuse it.dont need this world police man anyways for civilazation states like us.

Uk military is gone,now us is left,then we can hold up china.
 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
975
Likes
1,072
Country flag

As wise men have repeatedly said on this form, "US is not a trustworthy ally".
The issue isn't trust. The issue is we are pimps.

We should have thrown our missiles destroying those ships in message that we are not bullied by anyone. We all know that for these Savages, trust and principle's mean nothing but we still keep discussing whether they are reliable just proving our timid baniya mentality calculating gains and losses. If we have any self respect, they should be warned that repetition of such act would result in not diplomatic protest but lethal action.
 

Illusive

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
3,487
Likes
6,289
Country flag

Why do yankees think they have monopoly on human rights? Hmmm... they have to have monopoly on it.... don't they?

How would they hide all the crimes they have committed against humanity? How would they find new excuses to invade and ravage non white world? How.... how... how would these savages survive if they don't get to exploit the weak and the helpless. Barbarians.
They don't, they just can get away with it cause they have the biggest stick.

Try not agreeing with them. But ye sab time time ki baat hai. It will change if the opposition is strong enough, case in pouit China with Uighur and Honk Kong.
 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
975
Likes
1,072
Country flag
Stealthily but steadily, Beijing is reportedly building whole towns across internationally recognised borders in a new and dangerous global power play.

In early April, the Chinese welcomed a delegation of international visitors to the city of Kunming in Yunnan province.

The “expert group” was there to discuss China’s mountainous southern border, a tricky frontier to pin down due to it lying in uninhabited and wild terrain.

According to accounts from China’s press, the meeting between it and tiny Bhutan was exceptionally cordial. “The expert group meeting held in-depth and fruitful discussions on the boundary issue in a warm and friendly atmosphere,” China’s foreign ministry stated, as reported by Communist (CPC) mouthpiece the Global Times.

Which was all the more surprising because according to new research, China has quietly been invading its Himalayan neighbour for years.

What’s worse for Bhutan is that it isn’t even the real target for Beijing. Rather, it’s become caught in a geopolitical sparring match.

“This involves a strategy that is more provocative than anything China has done on its land borders in the past,” wrote Robert Barnett in Foreign Policy earlier this month.

“The settlement of an entire area within another country goes far beyond the forward patrolling and occasional road-building.”


A building in the Chinese town of Gyalaphug which is several kilometres within Bhutan’s internationally recognised borders.

Chinese town that appeared 8kms into Bhutan

The Kingdom of Bhutan lies entirely within the southern slopes of the Himalayas. To the south is the vast expanse of India and to the north, over the mountain peaks, the even vaster expanse of China.

The largely Buddhist Bhutanese have much in common with the people of Tibet which now lies within China. But diplomatically and economically, the government in Thimphu has closer links to India. Beijing doesn’t even have an embassy in Bhutan.

That Bhutan and China can’t agree where their 470km common border lies is nothing new. By some accounts Beijing claims 12 per cent of the territory governed by Thimphu. The recent meeting in Kunming was the 25th the two nations have held concerning the frontier.

China has long built roads into these disputed territories. But building a whole town within the internationally recognised territory of another nation, even if that territory is disputed, is striking.

Called Gyalaphug, or Jieluobu in Chinese, an administration block at its centre features a hammer and sickle. A nearby banner proclaims “Resolutely uphold the core position of General Secretary Xi Jinping!”

It’s estimated several hundred people, and even more yaks, could now live in Gyalaphug. That number is boosted by a rotation of construction workers, party cadres, police and soldiers.

There is little that Bhutan can do,” said Mr Barnett, given China would know it’s clearly violating a 1998 agreement to leave the disputed areas be.

That point is echoed by Johns Hopkins University professor of international relations Hal Brands.

“It’s unclear whether the Bhutanese government realised that the People’s Liberation Army had effectively invaded a small, remote part of its territory, or if it knew but was powerless to respond,” he told Bloomberg.

“What is clear is that the Chinese presence isn’t going anywhere. Beijing has executed a fait accompli by creating facts on the ground.”

China ‘quietly’ invading another sovereign nation

Prof Brands said China was operating an invasion “grey zone”.

It was “quietly sending troops onto pieces of inaccessible terrain claimed by Bhutan” but stopping short of actions that might cause a major conflict.

To the frustration of Bhutan, China’s territorial claims keep growing. Gyalaphug, for instance, is well within Bhutan according to some official Chinese maps from the 1980s.

Last July, the Chinese foreign ministry told India’s Hindustan Times there had been “disputes over the eastern, central and western sections (of Bhutan) for a long time”.

However, Bhutan is adamant that the dispute in the country’s east, where Beijing now claims land in the Sakteng wildlife reserve, is a new one. It’s never been raised by China before. Sakteng does not even border China.

It does, however, border the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, which Beijing also claims as its own.

Observers say that’s another sign it’s not really about Bhutan at all. China’s real target appears to be India.

Real target is India

The disputed chunks of Bhutan are bargaining chips.

“Ever since 1990, China has offered to give up the 495 square kilometres of the Beyul (where Gyalaphug is located) if Thimphu gives China 269 square kilometres of western Bhutan,” states the Foreign Policy which was also done with Tibetan researchers who did not want to be named.

This so-called “package deal” would mean ceding to China the area around the Doklam Plateau which is of far more strategic importance to Beijing than a village full of yaks high up a mountain.

China has reportedly built another village there, called Pangda, 2.5 kilometres into Bhutan. There are suggestions the Bhutanese government has turned a blind eye to the development rather than provoke Beijing.

Doklam lies next to India’s Siliguri corridor, a thin strip of land connecting Arunachal Pradesh with the rump of India. It is sandwiched between Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh, with China not much further away

It’s a corridor so thin, only 23km wide at its narrowest point, it’s nicknamed the “chicken’s neck”. It’s also known as “India’s geographic weak point”.

Writing in The Diplomat magazine last year, South Asia analyst Sudha Ramachandran said Bhutan’s claim over the Doklam Plateau and its closeness to New Delhi gave India a “major terrain advantage” over China.

But if Beijing had access to the Doklam highlands it could peer down on India and use it as a “launch pad for an offensive” to cut off the chicken’s neck. Arunachal Pradesh would be divided from the rest of India.

“China’s new claim over Sakteng is aimed at intimidating Bhutan into accepting the (Doklam) package deal — or face the consequences of Beijing’s rising territorial ambitions,” Ms Ramachandran said.


China and Indian border guards high in the Himalayas. Picture: AFP Photo/DIPTENDU DUTTASource:AFP

China and India have already clashed over Bhutan border

India and China have already come to blows over Doklam. In 2017, China built a road across the disputed plateau which was otherwise almost inaccessible. India sees the road as China asserting sovereignty.

Bhutan, which only has a small army, invited Indian soldiers to Doklam. China and India faced off against each other for 73 days in Bhutan, but no one was harmed.

That wasn’t the case in early 2020 when at least 24 soldiers died on the Himalayan border between China and India in Aksai Chin, far to the west of Doklam.

Tensions between New Delhi and Beijing are febrile and tiny, peaceful Bhutan is stuck in the middle. Any compromise with China will enrage India; keeping India onside could see China build more villages on Bhutanese soil.

Quoted by the Global Times, Qian Feng from the National Strategy Institute at Tsinghua University, said that the expert meeting in Kunming showed that “in the face of a small-sized country like Bhutan, China does not bully.

That may raise eyebrows in Thimphu and wipe the smiles of the faces of the Bhutan delegates at the next meeting.

 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
975
Likes
1,072
Country flag
China is Expanding, I am a little concerned. Can we strike through Xinjiang? Those in reform camps should come to our support and if given arms, might rebel against the Hans possibly deep into mainland China.

India should have the mettle to take control of Nepal and Bhutan's boundaries on security ground and let nepal and Bhutan have absolute autonomy internally as they can't remain independent and neutral on their own. Also Tibet should either be declared occupied or disputed until China issue has ben dealt. India needs to make claims further into China where there generally has been little or no presence Han majority which is about 2/3 of China rather than trying to keep from violating Indian border and sovereignty. If you are dealing with a larger power, you have to be on offensive. Defenders will eventually die and run over. We need some radicals leading India if BJP is too soft which it is. Doesn't have the belly to fight.
 

Tshering22

Sikkimese Saber
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2010
Messages
4,916
Likes
4,701
Country flag
China is Expanding, I am a little concerned. Can we strike through Xinjiang? Those in reform camps should come to our support and if given arms, might rebel against the Hans possibly deep into mainland China.

India should have the mettle to take control of Nepal and Bhutan's boundaries on security ground and let nepal and Bhutan have absolute autonomy internally as they can't remain independent and neutral on their own. Also Tibet should either be declared occupied or disputed until China issue has ben dealt. India needs to make claims further into China where there generally has been little or no presence Han majority which is about 2/3 of China rather than trying to keep from violating Indian border and sovereignty. If you are dealing with a larger power, you have to be on offensive. Defenders will eventually die and run over. We need some radicals leading India if BJP is too soft which it is. Doesn't have the belly to fight.
The Uyighurs are the jihadi variety. Giving them arms against the CCP will be the worst strategic mistake we can commit. If there has to be a war, let us assume to be neutral from that position. Think of it like a bunch of prisoners doing their own to target the CCP officials.

Also, we would need to start demolishing their illegally constructed villages as the first step to assert our territory. Sakteng region of Bhutan was never disputed. There was never any claim raised by China in the history of her limited ties to Bhutan. This is a new claim and a territorial threat. Using Bhutan to demolish these illegal constructions is the only way forward.

The way to push CCP off Indian/Bhutanese territory would be to hold their lands hostage while disarming their troops through clever manoeuvres. We need to strengthen three main areas: western Ladakh (our current Ladakh), Chicken's neck where a pincer move can capture the Chumbi Valley from Tibet and be held for negotiation, and entire Arunachal Pradesh that can be used to target the mainland's heartland in case the PLA starts lobbing missiles deeper into India.

Long range cruise missiles and ballistic missiles from Arunachal Pradesh can easily reach the southeastern parts of what is considered "mainland" by the CCP i.e. the Han heartland where the densest of their population lives. This is apart from the naval blockade at Malacca Strait and galvanizing our military ties with Vietnam through backdoor channels.

Fighting China will have to be a three pronged approach:
  1. Military manoeuvres to capture as much Tibetan/Chinese land as possible, especially the heights
  2. Targeting the mainland underbelly with missiles to remind PLA that their core manufacturing cities like Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Zunyi, Bishan, Dongguan, Zhonshan, Shantou, Yunfu, etc. are within the range of our long cruise and ballistic missiles (from Arunachal) in case they get naughty ideas with missiles
  3. Using the opportunity to involve as many countries with territorial problems with China as possible (Vietnam, Philippines, Indonesia and Japan mainly)
CCP and PLA will never understand diplomacy without being backed by hard military force. That is their cultural philosophy enforced by the Communists.
 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
975
Likes
1,072
Country flag
The Uyighurs are the jihadi variety. Giving them arms against the CCP will be the worst strategic mistake we can commit. If there has to be a war, let us assume to be neutral from that position. Think of it like a bunch of prisoners doing their own to target the CCP officials.

CCP and PLA will never understand diplomacy without being backed by hard military force. That is their cultural philosophy enforced by the Communists.
We should not be paranoid to think all muslims would act the same. We should assess the pros and cons if they can be used for our cause, they can prove asset and ease our burden. As long as they are under China's occupation, Chinese and especially Han Chinese would be their first and primary target being the ultimate infidels and oppressor of the Uyghurs. You could also assure them of a separate independent state in Xinjiang/East Turkestan for cooperation. They will follow the deal where they see greater benefits. We need to start speaking on Uyghur issue in our parliament and add voice to Uyghur cause being build up by the US-UK-EU. Most militant groups in Pakistan-Afghanistan who are aware of Uyghurs treatment by CCP as well as Turkey's new wannabe Caliphate i.e. Erdogan who still fancy the idea of regaining lost empires and unable to support East Turkestan openly due to Dragon's might could be brought together against Hans.
 

Villager

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
975
Likes
1,072
Country flag
Russia officially withdraws from Open Skies treaty

Moscow's departure from the pact is the final nail in the coffin for the confidence-building pact. Washington left the treaty in November last year.

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law the country's departure from the Open Skies treaty on Monday, following in the footsteps of the former and current US presidential administrations.

The agreement was set up after the Cold War to build confidence between Russia and NATO members by allowing signatory states to conduct unarmed surveillance missions over each other's territory.

Former US President Donald Trump announced that Washington would pull out of the agreement, prompting a pledge from Moscow to follow suit.

Putin is set to meet with President Joe Biden later in June. The only remaining weapons treaty between the two countries is the START agreement, limiting the number of nuclear warheads each may possess.

Why did Russia leave the Open Skies treaty?

There had been hopes that the current president would seek to return to the treaty. These hopes were dashed in May when the United States State Department informed Moscow that it would continue with Trump's policy after concluding that Russia had not complied with the pact.

The Russian parliament voted to leave the treaty last week, although Putin had already announced the plan to withdraw in January — a member has to give six months' notice.

Last year, US officials claimed that Russia violated the Open Skies Treaty by blocking surveillance flights around certain areas, including the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad and along the border with Georgia. Moscow has insisted those restrictions were permissible under the treaty.

The Kremlin complained that even if the US pulled out of the deal, it could still receive intelligence gathered by its NATO allies.

What is the Open Skies treaty?

According to the agreement, the signatory states are allowed to observe each other's military forces and activities by means of a limited number of yearly reconnaissance flights.

It was first signed in 1992 and came into effect in 2002.

Moscow had considered staying in the agreement in order to continue carrying out reconnaissance missions over Poland and Germany where the US military is active.

The Kremlin had attempted to maintain the "viability" of the treaty, but Washington did not cooperate. The Russian Foreign Ministry called the reasoning for American withdrawal a "fictitious pretext" that upset "the balance of interests in the participating states."

As a condition for staying in the pact after the U.S. pullout, Moscow unsuccessfully sought guarantees from NATO allies that they wouldn’t transfer the data collected during their observation flights over Russia to the U.S.

Moscow has warned that the U.S. withdrawal will erode global security by making it more difficult for governments to interpret the intentions of other nations.

 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top