How China's Military Views the United States

But sometimes it is. There are also simply too many variables to know for sure. I'm not sure if it even matters to the Chinese if it's a slam-dunk or a very bloody contest. Chinese conflicts have a history of being very bloody. I mean, just look at the list of wars ranked by death toll, wars involving China feature prominently in every era.

List of wars by death toll - Wikipedia

 

Very insightful Economist piece on how the CCP so quickly subjugated Hong Kong. We are all aware of the top down repression. With this piece covers that I was not previously aware of is that the handover negotiations were occurring since 1983. During that time an estimated 80,000 Party members, without identifying themselves, emigrated to Hong Kong and obtained citizenship after seven years and got themselves into the civil service and otherwise develop substantial background about civil society.

Also, a long campaign of ingratiating themselves withPro-democracy activists and seeming sympathetic about trying to set up communications and dialogue. This was under the guise of how to set up the “One Nation, Two Systems structure after turnover. Activists thought it was sincere dialogue towards the then official goal. In reality, it was nothing more than cover so that they could learn as much as possible about pro-democracy activists - the identity of the most significant activists, methods, etc., to effectively repress when the time came.


In her book, “Underground Front”, Christine Loh, an official in Hong Kong’s government in the 2010s, cites one estimate that 83,000 mainland officials entered Hong Kong under assumed names and false identities between 1983, when negotiations on the handover began, and its eventual achievement in 1997. After seven years in Hong Kong the infiltrators qualified for permanent residency, which gave them the right to apply for jobs in the Hong Kong civil service. The party prioritised infiltrating departments like the police, customs and immigration to ensure it had control over the city, says Mr Ching. The response to the protests of 2019 had been years in the making.

The party had, decades before, set up a shadowy department to work alongside supporters who were not members. It was known as the United Front Work Department, and it continues to cultivate individuals and organisations around the world. Friendly scholars and businesspeople looked to it for access to things the party controlled, such as research materials and photo-ops with senior officials. Chairman Mao called the United Front one of the party’s “magic weapons”.




Party operatives initially attempted to cultivate relationships with pro-democracy groups. The movement’s members were often willing partners; as several former lawmakers attest, they believed that opening a channel of communication with state security would be helpful. And many felt that a few cordial meetings would be unlikely to change anyone’s mind. But they gave the party a detailed understanding of Hong Kong and, in the end, leverage over many of its leaders.
“Looking back, we were very naïve,” says one former lawmaker. Many democrats were invited to dinners and meetings in Beijing where party officials would offer money, women or positions of power in exchange for co-operation and information. “They can give you anything, except democracy,” says Lee Wing-tat, a former leader of the Democratic Party who now lives in Britain. Several pro-democracy politicians were co-opted, he says.


How a free and open Hong Kong became a police state

 

In regards to China as a military threat to the US. They have no reason to waste even a single bullet on America for now. Just wait 3-5 years as we become the Divided States of America and significantly weaken if not destroy ourselves, then just cleanup afterwards.

China has been planning a potential invasion for over 30 years. Not even the Chinese could have foreseen the Divided States of America back in the early 90's.

 

The always excellent Soufan Center on the G7 response to Belt and Road


Bottom Line Up Front:

• At the recent G7 Leaders’ Summit in Germany, Western leaders formally launched a global infrastructure and investment partnership, largely designed to compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
• Since its launch in 2013, BRI has been marred by criticism of unsustainable infrastructure projects in some recipient countries—from debt traps to environmentally degrading and democracy eroding projects.
• The Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) is designed with the understanding that infrastructure investment must not focus solely on transport, but also on digital infrastructure and connectivity.
• It is crucial that the projects under PGII are developed in consultation with recipient countries to adequately address their needs, not what G7 countries dictate or believe they need.

G7 Countries Have a Plan to Counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)

 

I cannot emphasize how good this interview with Aaron Friedberg is. Here is the background summary


For decades, experts and analysts have written in great detail about the importance of liberalization and its role in promoting democracy and other western values. Specifically, many believed that once a state began this track towards liberalization, open markets and a liberal democracy was inevitable. Yet, the several decades following Henry Kissinger’s secret trip to China has proven differently, as China continues to grow more distant and confrontational with the West.

Lawfare Fellow in Cybersecurity Law, Alvaro Marañon, sat down with Aaron Friedberg, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University. Aaron is an expert on the relations between China and the West, and has written numerous articles and books assessing the economic, military and political dangers of this rivalry.

They explored his new book, “Getting China Wrong”, and discussed the origins of the West’s engagement with China, how and why the West miscalculated the Chinese Communist Party’s identity and objectives, and how the U.S. and Biden administration can start getting China “right.”

The Lawfare Podcast: Aaron Friedberg on "Getting China Wrong"

 

Friedberg talks at length about the fact that Western Leaders in numerous countries and all across the political spectrum believed that when China adopted market economics, it would inevitably lead to political liberalization. It has not, though I would add that it may still. Autocrats always think they can control things until they can't.

But in making the point, he referred to a metaphor used by Deng about opening windows also bringing in flies

Keeping the Flies Out

This obviously held back economic development, and China’s reformist leader Deng Xiaoping determined to change it. But he famously warned, “If you open the window for fresh air, you have to expect some flies to blow in.” The idea was that China needed to tolerate a certain amount of spiritual pollution but to be on guard lest the windows open too wide. Lots of flies started coming in.



That reminded me of the intra-church debate in Catholicism over the impact of the Vatican II Council in the mid-60s, which undertook a lot of reforms, too numerous to recount here, changing parts of the traditional mass and most importantly for political board, ending what had been Catholic doctrine that the Jews were God killers and that other religions and Christian traditions were invalid and subservient to Catholicism and that Catholicism should be enforced by governmental power.

That Council was also justified as opening the windows to letting in fresh air.

Vatican II: It's about that 'fresh air'

Catholics often recall the words of Pope John XXIII when he opened the Second Vatican Council. He said it was time to "open the windows and let in the fresh air." It was a marvelous metaphor. The church of the 1950s was indeed in a stultified space, with very little opening to the issues of the world or to other faith traditions.

Traditionalists quickly latched onto a different impact of opening the windows, as shown here.


What did Paul VI mean by saying "the smoke of Satan has entered the Church"?

It’s the beginning of the 1970s: times of unrest in the world and in the Church. It’s the period immediately after the Second Vatican Council. Pope Paul VI writes a letter that will remain unpublished until 2018, when its content is revealed in the book The Barque of Paul (“La barca di Paolo“), by Fr. Leonardo Sapienza, regent of the Pontifical Household.

It’s June 29, 1972. Paul VI has a clearer and clearer impression that there is something deep and negative that is increasingly afflicting the Church. The path towards secularization and the lack of internal unity are becoming two great problems for the Church throughout the world.

The pope, concerned, writes:

“… We would say that, through some mysterious crack—no, it’s not mysterious; through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God. There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest, dissatisfaction, confrontation.

“The Church is no longer trusted. We trust the first pagan prophet we see who speaks to us in some newspaper, and we run behind him and ask him if he has the formula for true life. I repeat, doubt has entered our conscience. And it entered through the windows that should have been open to the light: science.”



Amazing that they use the same metaphor. And I would say that traditionalist Catholics the least like Opus Dei think a lot like the CCP

 

I agree. I wasn't agreeing with him at all. It was just odd to hear the same metaphor I have heard about all my life regarding Church politics deployed by the leader of the CCP

 

Big issues in the housing market in China. It's by design though, as the Chinese government wants to channel money away from housing and soft tech (social media, fintech, ride hailing/delivery, etc.) to hard tech (chips, robotics, new energy industry, etc.). There's gonna be a lot of pain for sure, as a lot of the middle-upper class Chinese's money is locked up in real estate, soft tech, and associated shadow banking sector. The CCP is gonna need to come down with an iron fist to keep a lid on the social problems this is gonna cause.

 

Why it’s so hard for Western businesses to avoid compromise to access the Chinese market.

In many areas, you are writing off 20% of worldwide consumption

Five consumer trends shaping the next decade of growth in China | McKinsey

 

Interesting

 

Yea, no one’s fooled, but it will be hard to stop, and is problematic. Then again, extended bases also create burdens and different vulnerabilities

 

China has far bigger problems than the U.S.A. right now... What this video of what's happening in China. You people will not even believe what you see at 10:40 mark on the video... It will sound eerily familiar to what Biden and his goons are trying to implement here and throughout all of the rest of the world...

I wonder how many American pension funds will be wiped out? No wonder billions of dollars are being earmarked for "the Ukraine." Many of our rich politicians are going to lose their azzes if the Chinese economy totally collapses.

This is a must see video!

"China's ENTIRE Economy Will Collapse In 34 Days"