Is China going to surpass the US and become the world's most powerful superpower?
Recently I posted a thread about China's ambition in taking over Taiwan and it's desire to become the world's most powerful superpower in the Asia pacific area. Below is a link to that thread and the comments posted in response:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12136/what-are-odds-that-in-the-near-future-there-will-be-a-conflict-with-china/p1
Since that discussion has been been more or less exhausted as to what could be talked about, I thought it might be better to discuss a even bigger issue of China's desire to become the dominant super power in the world and whether they can achieve such a goal.
I could be wrong but from what I know of the current world situation, China doesn't seem to be in the position to challenge the US and her allies even in the Asian pacific militarily or even economically but China recently has been showing a shift in attitude that they are not to be trifled with in any shape of form and their rhetoric is one in which they expect other countries to kowtow to China's politics and China be insensitive to the will of other countries, especially when it comes to threatening others with military action if they don't get what they want or using computer espionage to steal state or intellectual property. It is still a question as to whether China is just feeling it Wheaties and thinks it can threaten others but yet not willing to take action or if China thinks it is ready to follow through with such threats.
The bottom line is even if China isn't able or willing to use military action to get what it wants in the near future, in the coming decades will it be able to use it's economic and/or military might to get whatever it wants and be able to eventually even push the US and her allies into a corner and make it so that the rest of world has to allow China to whatever it wants and eventually allow China to surpass the US as the world's major superpower?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12136/what-are-odds-that-in-the-near-future-there-will-be-a-conflict-with-china/p1
Since that discussion has been been more or less exhausted as to what could be talked about, I thought it might be better to discuss a even bigger issue of China's desire to become the dominant super power in the world and whether they can achieve such a goal.
I could be wrong but from what I know of the current world situation, China doesn't seem to be in the position to challenge the US and her allies even in the Asian pacific militarily or even economically but China recently has been showing a shift in attitude that they are not to be trifled with in any shape of form and their rhetoric is one in which they expect other countries to kowtow to China's politics and China be insensitive to the will of other countries, especially when it comes to threatening others with military action if they don't get what they want or using computer espionage to steal state or intellectual property. It is still a question as to whether China is just feeling it Wheaties and thinks it can threaten others but yet not willing to take action or if China thinks it is ready to follow through with such threats.
The bottom line is even if China isn't able or willing to use military action to get what it wants in the near future, in the coming decades will it be able to use it's economic and/or military might to get whatever it wants and be able to eventually even push the US and her allies into a corner and make it so that the rest of world has to allow China to whatever it wants and eventually allow China to surpass the US as the world's major superpower?
Comments (65)
I more or less agree with your post, while China wants to take over Taiwan it is unlikely for them to do so with military action and if they DO take military action the negative consequences for them in doing so will likely be so disadvantageous that it wouldn't be worth anything they get for taking Taiwan. In other words, it might be a worse experience for them than what happened in Viet Nam for the US.
However, China it seems lately to be willing to take actions against their neighbors such as Australia (such as in cyber attacks and sending military vessels near their coast) as a way of demonstrating their belief that they ARE the dominate superpower in Asia and that they believe that there is nothing anyone can do to stop this. Of course, such actions haven't gone unnoticed and right now Australia and China are not as friendly with each other as they use to be. It is plausible that such actions were miscalculations on the behalf of Chinese leadership, but if they are willing to blunder into such actions as to make friendly countries a lot less friendly with them than it is plausible blunders on their part could eventually turn the cold war they have started with West and her allies into more of a hot war.
Right now, they seem to be content with their sabre rattling and rhetoric of bring fire and brimstone to anyone that isn't willing to kowtow to the power that be in China but it is unknown how long they will be happy saying such things and at what point they are really willing to back up their words with real action.
As I mentioned before it seems like China isn't really ready to back up their words with action, but from what little I know they are doing everything in their power to beef up their army, navy, and air force in a way to make it seem like they might be more ready in the future to act. Also there is an issue with their economy where it seems like they intend to be the most powerful economic superpower in the world in the upcoming years. I don't know what power they will gain from either or both moves, but something tells me if they are doing so much preparations in trying to undermine the US and her allies at the present that it is unlikely that they will continue to sit on their hands in the coming decades with some move to show off to the West their military/economic might in the hopes that the US and other countries will either back down or even bow down to China.
While it isn't a given this will happen, I believe that history has shown that when a country spends a lot of money on military build up (often at the expense of domestic projects) that the leaders of such countries are kind of under pressure for them to try and start solving problems through military force (instead of relying on diplomatic means), and the issue of the possible negative outcome of such actions are no longer as important as they once were.
China is just starting to act like we do. Yes, that could be a frightening prospect.
This is what scares me about China:
https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4
The US may not be the nicest superpower to ever exist, but I would have to agree with other forum members that it is better for a world to be protected by the US then ruled under China.
Living in China right now people can be detained and jailed indefinitely just because someone claims that they are a dissident or enemy of the state. I don't know if it is as bad as North Korea with their concentration camps, but it is likely not that much better.
Take for a moment to imagine somehow North Korea became as powerful as China and started flexing it's military muscles and started talking about attacking South Korea and perhaps Japan as well if the US and her allies didn't just let them seize South Korea and whatever territory they wanted to. While it is a given that any military aggression by North Korea would be confronted by forces by either US and her allies the very idea of your country being taken over and having to live under thumb of the North Korean dictator would be about as terrifying for any democratic country in Asia as it would be for any European country to be taken over by either Hitler or Stalin when either of them were alive.
While China may not be quite as bad as North Korea at the moment, they are increasingly hostile and threatening to their neighboring countries. They have even managed to alienate Australia through cyber attacks and military action who they use to have much better relations with. Any country they manage to take over would have their government replaced with a puppet one from China and the country would no longer be a country but merely another subservient state under the rule of China.
In a nutshell if China manages to become the biggest super power in the world and nobody can or will stop them, they will just keep swallowing one country after another until either most or all of the world is under the authoritarian rule of China itself. While some people claim that living in a world under US rule is kind of like living under either authoritarian rule or under some neo-feudalism, I'm pretty certain that living under Chinese rule with people in charge like the current authorities in China would be much, much worse and the people living under such conditions and people would be treated not that better than animals as their only existence would be to serve the state, much like those that are forced to live in North Korea.
Yeah, I've hear about this before where China is trying to use IT technology to turn their cities into police states instead of using it to try and make peoples lives better. In the US you can have trouble getting certain jobs if you have a bad credit score, but at least the city and state authorities that are here don't use it to "identify troublemakers". The problem with using credit scores to identify "good"/"bad" people is that credit scores are really just a reflection of a persons financial status and not criminal/moral behavior since ALOT of law abiding people who never have committed a crime in their lives can have really bad credit scores if they either have a medical emergency and/or lose their job and unable to quickly acquire a new one.
Maybe their is a difference between "credit scores" in the US and China, but if they are not then it would be a bit unethical to judge citizens with bad credit scores as trouble makers if the reason for having a bad score was because of financial problems. Of course often in a police state being "poor" can be a crime in and of itself and because of this it wouldn't matter if one was a law abiding citizen but had financial issues since the fact that they are unable to produce wealth themselves could or would be not better than the actions of a common criminal. Welcome to the new "new world order".
I haven't seen anyone else seriously claim that the Chinese authorities have any such plan, or that it's a remotely probable scenario. Where do you get the idea from?
The more stable situation would be to have the influence of both.
This is the lie we told ourselves when we got into Vietnam. As I said, I think the days of superpowers are over. We'll see. Well, not me, I'll be dead by then.
Do you have doubts that China if given the opportunity wouldn't use any military advantage it has to become the most influential super power in the Asia-Pacific and after becoming the most powerful country in that area then wouldn't work toward becoming the most powerful country in the world?
One could say that once upon a time China was mostly just interested in maintaining it's borders and merely defending itself from potential outside threats, but that is no longer the case. China now is trying to build up a military that potentially could one day rival that in the US and/or could potentially take on both the US and her allies at once. It may seem inconceivable that any country that wants to build up a military as big as the US would naturally want to challenge them, but it kind of works that way because if you have a big military it is almost a given you want to do something with it. And it is pretty much a given that China has some scores to settle after the last few hundred years where they where more victims of various wars then the other way around.
Also after you somehow manage to get extra territory through either political or military means it often emboldens one's leaders as to figure out what other territory may need to be taken in order to further their own national interest. While China may not be particularly interested in any other land than Taiwan at the moment, they are interested in taking over any territory which may help undermine the US and her allies while at the same time strengthening their own economy.
In a nutshell, all they want to do is find a way further political/military/economical agenda while at the same time undermine US/Western influence in the region at the same time. However in doing so they have set themselves on a collision course with Western countries and their allies, and on top of that they have mad verbal threats and military action against allies in the region. One may like to think of it as some kind of "peaceful" rabble rousing that China's is doing in order to get more "respect" from other, but if you lived in a country where someone from China told you that you need to kowtow before China unless you want to be blown to tiny bits by Chinese bombs, you may not think of China as the nice friendly China that you may envision them to be.
Also it is pretty much a given that if one wants to be the largest superpower in the world, it is unlikely one can do so by other countries merely peacefully accepting your desire to take them over and everyone just happily singing "Kumbaya" when you are done. A while back China had better political relations with neighboring countries such as Austria when all China seemed to want was beneficial trade relations with other countries, but when Austria realized that China was making great efforts to spy on them through cybercrimes that friendship got a lot colder. While it may not seem a big deal to be spying, and taking other actions with a friendly country in which you have good trade relationships with, it kind of makes one wonder what China is willing to do with countries that they don't even have good relationships with yet.
The bottom line is that China is expending an incredible effort to build up it's military and trying to command respect for other countries in order for people in said countries to recognize it's "authority" in certain matters since now it considers itself the world next greatness superpower. Whether or not it will be able to command such respect in the coming years, it is almost already a given that it thinks other countries should not interfere in any of it's plans..or else. While it hasn't exactly lived up to all of the threats they have made, it is hard not to believe that they would go through with them if they could. And the biggest obstacle in for them being able to just follow through with all of their current plans is many the US and her allies. I don't know about you but if I considered myself the world's biggest superpower and I needed to show other countries they need to kowtow before me, I would use the resources at my disposal to make an example of any country that is trying to undermine my counties authority. Of course that is IF my country was indeed the world greatest superpower and I wasn't just making hollow threats that I could back up with action.
When I was young and before the Cold War ended, I use to think that in some way the USSR kept the US in check and the US kept the USSR in check. And with two separate superpowers with different ideology neither the forces of capitalism nor communism could become truly the dominant ideology in the world. Of course this changed when the Cold War ended.
Today it seems like capitalism has de-evolved into something more like plutocracy or neo-feudalism than democratic capitalism it use to be (that is if it even was ever that). But if you look at China instead of it being communist it itself has de-evolved into authoritarianism. Because of this, it is no longer really a conflict of ideology like the last Cold War but more merely about how the richest and most people in the world will decide how to carve up the world among themselves and how they will treat and rule the pleebs beneath them.
Because of this, there is no real benefit from China trying to wrestle control with the West.
Well the real lie in many of our wars that it was really about certain rich men becoming richer at the expense of those that fought and suffer during such wars, however this can be said of almost all wars that are fought.
While the idea of having one (or more) super powers trying to act like a world cop doesn't sound all that great with all the problems that can be cause by this, neither is the idea of dozens and dozens of smaller countries always bickering and often fighting in order to either change or maintain the existing status quo. It isn't a given the former is always better than the latter, but I think as a rule of thumb it is more often harder when dealing with the latter since one's existence is often threaten by hostile neighbors who are almost always thinking of ways of coming over, taking over, and/or stealing your lunch in one form or another.
I guess such is the nature of man and conflicts since the beginning of time.
Strongly disagree. I think the world without a superpower is where we're headed, and that's a good thing.
:chin:
Otherwise, your reply does not make anything close to a case for the claim that the Chinese intend to "swallow up one country after another", as you put it.
If one is a "freethinker", it should be possible to step out of the mythology of one's culture of origin, but perhaps the myth of the freethinking individual is the hardest myth to step out of. Should we consider the end of the US as a superpower, as the triumph of the free individual, or his defeat?
[quote=I Shall be Free no.10]Now, I'm liberal, to a degree
I want ev'rybody to be free
But if you think that I'd let Barry Goldwater
Move in next door or marry my daughter
You must think I'm crazy
I wouldn't let him do it for all the farms in Cuba. [/quote]
A philosopher might question whether it is even coherent that The Land of the Free is the dominant superpower. Or is that part of the doublethink by which control is maintained?
I disagree with your disagreement. We still live in a world where might almost makes right and that has not changed since either the end of World War II and/or the Cold War. I don't know what makes you believe that either military and/or economic power is irrelevant anymore and the ability of any given country can think and claim they are a superpower because of it, but it seems obvious that the relevance of discussions as to whom is and isn't one should make it clear the importance of such economic/military capacity.
There is a quote from the movie "They Live" that goes something along the lines of "He who has the gold makes the rules" which roughly translates into "He who has power makes the rules which others have to live by". The latter more or less applies to the differences between those that are a superpower and those who are not.
I don't know if it is just wishful thinking on your part or if you have some valid reason why being a superpower isn't important but from where I'm sitting, I can't see a world where there either isn't superpower countries throwing their weight around or countries trying to build up the armies in order for them to have some kind of quasi-superpower status. I'm sure one could argue that it would be "nicer' if the nature of man was different and all of mankind could work together as one, but that is NOT the kind of world we currently live in. Perhaps if our world was threaten by some kind of alien race that wished to take over our world, maybe our differences would become moot and the entire human race would no longer squabble over who has what since our very existence could be on the line. However it isn't a given that such a situation would be that much better than the one we are already in.
I guess you forgot about the fact that China is threating military action against Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't surrender to China in the near future. Also they are doing everything and anything they can to take over islands in Pacific through either political pressure or money, as well as threating India and other neighboring countries. Also China is trying to gain power in Africa, as well as trying to use computer espionage in any country they can in order to gain some leverage over whatever/whomever they can.
Here are some videos to give you an idea of what is really going on:
Hopefully after you watch all these videos you will have a better idea of what China is trying to do.
Many people disagree with many of my disagreements. No surprise. You and I see things differently. I've seen the trouble fear will get us into.
Quoting dclements
Love this movie. I think Rowdy Roddy Piper got an Oscar nomination. Didn't he? On the other hand, I don't plan to develop my foreign policy opinions based on it.
Quoting dclements
As I noted, I don't think it makes any difference what you and I think is best. I think the days of superpowers are over, whether we like it or not.
I think China is already trying to do that and it will only stop if the international community takes concerted action to stop it.
The European Union has just announced a âŹ300bn fund to counteract growing Chinese influence:
EU launches âŹ300bn fund to challenge Chinaâs influence â BBC News
The head of British intelligence has said that China is now the biggest external threat on account of its aggressive foreign policy including espionage and subversive economic activities:
China now our biggest priority, says head of MI6 â The Times
China is trapping poor nations with data snares and debt, says MI6 chief â The Times
And anti-China resistance is growing in Africa, India, and elsewhere:
China calls on citizens to leave eastern Congo after attacks â AP
So, there seems to be growing awareness of the danger posed by China's foreign policy and a certain degree of willingness to put up resistance.
The only problem is that if the West keeps putting pressure on Russia by constantly expanding NATO and interfering in Ukraine and elsewhere, Russia will see itself forced to side with China against the West.
A more logical approach would be for the West to form a united front with Russia, India, Japan, and Africa to stop China's growing economic expansionism and militarism.
It already has.
For you it is. For the rest of the world, China is a regional power.
Thanks!
Quoting dclements
So...
1. The People's Republic of China wants to get the Republic of China back, and will use bullying and coercion to do it.
2. It wants some islands in its vicinity, for trade and control and regional dominance and all that.
3. The Chinese are exploiting Africans in the context of global capitalism.
4. They're doing espionage.
None of this backs up your statement. I don't approve of what they're doing and how they do it, but their foreign adventures are nothing in comparison with those of some other countries. In any case, none of it shows that they intend to actually invade and "swallow up" the rest of the world, as you claimed. That is just your frenzied fantasy. Taiwan is obviously a special case.
I think China has the potential to become the new American right-wing bogeyman that keeps us dumping 700 billion tax dollars into a peacetime war machine while children starve, bridges collapse, and public education devolves into for profit bible schools.
When I said I disagree with your disagreement I was kind of just trying to be cute. I could be wrong but certain amount of fear is warranted in the case of dealing with China since they are nearly doing everything in their power to under the US and her allies in the Asia- Pacific region as well as else where. This might sound like the typical far mongering spewed from the West whenever they need a reason to spend more on their military and/or flex their military muscle, but China posses a larger threat then the terrorist in the middle east could EVER pose to the world. When I was younger I never thought it was really necessary to invade and/or start wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc just because they hold either oil or other strategic interest to the US but I don't think it is an option for the US and her allies to just sit on their hands after the actions they have taken in the recent years..
Quoting T Clark
You misread my post, it has really nothing to do with the movie and more about the problem of the misuse of power and the fact that those who often have almost all the power think that "might makes right" and that they are not accountable to the crimes they commit because they have to much power for anyone to hold them accountable. I could be wrong but I think you know the difference between living in a democracy from living in an authoritarian or military dictatorship. While the US and some of her allies don't really have a true democracy anymore (that is if there ever was one), they are still better then living under a military dictatorship that Hong Kong is under and what other countries will be like if China ever can get their hands on them,
Quoting T Clark
Well I agree with you that we are merely plebs to the larger powers that be so are opinions are not really as relevant as those who could do something about it, unless either we can influence someone who can do something or enough of us plebs have a better understanding of the situation.
I have done my best to try to explain my position on why countries who have super power status (as well as the allies that support them) still make a difference in the world. However I have seen nothing in your posts to explain why you believe that the "days of superpowers are over" other than that is your opinion. As 180 Proof (another forum member) has often pointed out on this and other forums "positions not backed by any proof can be easily dismissed without any proof", and since you seem to be either unable or unwilling to explain why you believe what you are saying I have to assume it is merely a position that isn't backed by anything other than your mere opinion.
I could be wrong but your views are not all that different than some of those in Britain who wanted to avoid another war with Germany before World War II and who wanted to try a diplomatic tactic of "appeasement" with Hitler and Nazi Germany. I don't know if you realize it but the failure of not doing enough early on in the war pretty much had a catastrophic cost to England and in the end England was no longer the global super power is was before the war.
While it is unlikely the US and her allies in the region will make the same mistake England made with Hitler, it is almost all but a given that China is more than willing to do whatever it takes (other than perhaps having a full confrontation with the US and her allies) to seize control in the region. While China doesn't seem that threatening at the moment to you because of the US presence, a question you might what to ask yourself would you be happy and comfortable living in either Taiwan, Japan, or Australia right if there wasn't any US presence and the country you were in (as well as the people in it) had to deal with China's efforts to expand their domain and their willingness to use a military option if the country you were in wasn't willing to kowtow to ever whim or desire the China had for it. I could be wrong but I think you would be in an entirely different mindset if you were in that position and not the one you are currently in.
Excellent post! :D
I more or less agree with everything you said and applaud the fact you also pointed out some of the issues I haven't gotten around to point out myself. You are clearly someone who has done some due diligence on the subject and is knowledgeable about the current set of circumstances involving China.
To be honest, I have no idea why the West has chosen to continued to have such frosty relations with Russia other than some of the people in our country still think of them the same way we did during the cold war as well as some of the aggressive behavior of Russia since the cold war ended. Perhaps it is just a case of old habits dying hard and politicians on both sides still like to wave their fists at each other in order for them to gain support from their constituents. While China and Russia are currently on friendly terms, I don't think they are friendly enough to aid one another in a war with the US if it is happens that either China or Russia is the one that decides to start one with us. However whether this is true or not remains to be seen.
I believe for a variety of reasons, I believe the US and her allies are making efforts in order so that Russia and China may not be as friendly or get more friendlier with each other. Perhaps this may involve trying to create friendly ties between Russia and the US (and perhaps her allies) but I'm not really aware of what the real goals are since I haven't read up on them.
Perhaps you have "seen nothing... to explain," but I did give an explanation. I guess you missed it.
Yeah, this problem goes all the way back to the Cold War where the US government always had the issue of whether it was better to invest in either butter or bullets. Since we have almost always had to spend more money on our military than pretty much all other countries combined it is pretty much a given which of the two gets the most attention. I have a feeling that this isn't going to change at any time in the near future.
Guns versus butter model
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_versus_butter_model
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gunsandbutter.asp
Can you be so kind as to give me a link/point out which post you are referring to? I have looked at all your posts in this thread and all I can see in your posts is more or less you merely stating your opinions without really anything to back them up. Maybe I missed something in one of those post or perhaps you are referring to a post in a different thread, however in either case in would be helpful if would show me where in your posts you put something that supports your position and isn't just a statement of what your beliefs or opinions are.
The "had to" is debatable. We have to in order to prop up a manufacturing sector with inefficient contracts because our consumer goods corporations went overseas to increase their profits. We have 11 aircraft carriers and twice the deck space of the world combined. I think the Chinese government is more concerned with their government not being undermined by appearing weak. Trying to get 1.4 billion people operating under a system that is not tailored to competitive interests is a contest against human nature.
Obviously, it is not in Russia's long-term interest to be too close to China as it might end up as a Chinese satellite if it doesn't watch it. But Russia may be forced to side with China as a short-term defensive measure against Western aggression.
The root of the current tensions between the West and Russia is EU and NATO expansion aiming to seize control of Russian resources.
This had already been the plan in the 1990s when the EU wanted to incorporate Russia into its expanding union. Then Putin came to power in 2000 which spoiled the plan.
So, it's all about control of resources from oil and gas to gold, diamonds, and other assets. The US, EU, and UK are obviously hoping to share the spoils if Putin falls and they are trying to make him fall sooner rather than later.
The usual tactic is to "democratize" a country, then open up its economy to investment resulting in foreign financial control, and finally control its political system and its military.
This is a tactic China has learned from the West and is now applying in developing countries and, increasingly, in developed regions like Europe.
America and Europe are slowly beginning to wake up to reality. Unfortunately, they still have Russia in their sights. This has already forced Russia to gang up with Turkey and other unpalatable dictatorships.
This can only be bad news for Europe, America, and the whole international community.
Very long sentence.
Short answer: No.
A bit why this is...
1) If mainland China would have the same per capita income as Taiwan, it would have surpassed long ago the GDP of the US. Actually the Chinese economy would be then twice that of the US. Now it's still far smaller. This is the crucial factor: Mainland China is controlled by the CCP who think they are doing achieving true Marxism. Really, don't mind what people here say, that's what the CCP themselves say. They really believe that they have finally molded Marxism to work.
Hence they shoot themselves in the foot, because planned authoritarian economies can go just so far. When you look at Chinese history, they have been able to do this in many occasions. The biggest obstacle for China is that they are controlled by communists. A China that would remember Chiang Kai Sek would be different (what you can see from the tiny Island nation).
2) Never underestimate the effects of the disastrous "one child"-policy. Having been totally unable to fathom that higher prosperity lowers child birth naturally, the Chinese authorities with this drastic actions have dug a huge hole for themselves as the country will age. This is a severe problem for China. Just look at India: they never had limits to population growth and now it isn't a problem.
3) China will be facing hard financial issues in the future. You can only build so much, even if that building program has been something that has never been seen in World history prior to this day.
4) Finally, do note that this discourse is extremely American. It's the Americans that see any growing country as a possible rival that will take their place. Earlier it was of course the Soviet Union. Were they scary. Then it was Japan, remember? Oh, how Japan was taking over the US and how Japanese companies were buying the gems of American industry and commerce. This is a discourse that is promoted in the US in order to try to get Americans to go with the idea of them being a Superpower.
This indeed is what the siloviks have and the KGB has said all along. Those evil Westerners!!!
(And people fall for this)
Yes. With a a microscopic population of 5.5 million, fertility rate of about 1.37, and average age of 40+, Finns are definitely in the best position to point the finger at China!
Statistics Finland unveils bleak population forecast â population to start decline in 2031 â Helsinki Times
I don't think I will bother with your other comments .... :smile:
LOL!!!
Have to say that has to be the strawman argument of the month! I mean talk about not refuting anything of the original argument. Yet actually your comparison only shows how dire the issue is to China. So thanks for taking another dismal example to compare how bad things are in China:
Btw, ALL European countries are below 2,0 fertility rate for those who don't know it. Yet Chinese fertility rate at 1,3 and hence EVEN LOWER than in Finland, now at 1,44, and still higher even if we'd take that 1,37 you refer to. (see here).
And China doesn't have similar net immigration. So if for Finland the peak of population (by the article given by @Apollodorus) would be in 2031. How are things in China? Some fresh news articles about it:
Or worse:
Or even worse:
Of course, we will see quite quickly (in a decade or so) if the above articles are true or not. But I guess decreasing population NOW is worse than possibly decreasing population in ten years. Of course, the Chinese officials will likely hide this statistic as they hide nearly everything starting from a virus out brake that caused a pandemic. But things can be kept hidden only so long.
So I would urge Americans just to keep their cool. The only real worry is that the local dictator will do something extremely stupid (like invade Taiwan) if the domestic problems get really bad. But still I wouldn't say it is imminent.
I think you are clutching at straws there.
You may not realize this, but if replacement level fertility is above 2, then anything below 2 is below replacement level. This renders the difference between China's 1.3 and Finland's 1.4 negligible.
Basically, what your own statement boils down to is that Finland is in the same boat as China. So, it's a case of the proverbial kettle calling the pot black. :smile:
No, that Finland has bleak demographics is a reality, but I'm not forecasting my country to be an economic juggernaut that will surpass others. So I'm clueless why you are thinking this is a "case of the proverbial kettle calling the pot black". The simple fact is that in order for China to surpass the US economy, demographics is a real issue, which you cannot simply deny. It simply does have an effect, because in order to take the position of the US, China has to grow.
Still, in my view the far bigger obstacle is the CCP and the authoritarian streak that has taken China during the era of Xi Jingping. Central planning can go only so far. Central planners cannot anticipate what are the new growth sectors will be during the next decade or two. That the CCP put down harshly the protest movement shows that in the end the Chinese authorities don't care if they kill the goose that lays the golden eggs (as Hong Kong is a huge economic powerhouse).
You first seemed to suggest that Finlandâs demographic outlook is somehow better than Chinaâs, and now you are admitting that it isnât.
Finland may or may not aim to be an economic juggernaut, but the EU does of which Finland is a member.
If a low birth rate is a problem for China, it is also a problem for the EU and its member-states.
I also suggest you look at your other statement:
Quoting ssu
On your logic, if âsilovikiâ say that the sky is blue, then it must be wrong and no one must ever repeat that statement.
The reality, of course, is that an EU silovik is not any better than a Russian silovik. Same rhetoric and same propaganda.
Nope. That was all your Strawman answer of the month! Please read the comments of others.
My original comment was:
No mention of Finland. :wink:
Quoting Apollodorus
Saying "Sky is blue" and a hilarious argument that "The root of the current tensions between the West and Russia is EU and NATO expansion aiming to seize control of Russian resources" are really not in the same ballpark.
Reality check: The Warsaw Pact collapsed. The Soviet Union collapsed. The countries that emerged from those wrecks wanted to join the EU and NATO. And for an obvious reason, just look at what happened to Ukraine and Georgia. You seem to forget that and go with the idea of Russia being the victim here. And the countries that wanted to join EU or NATO doesn't seem part of the equation for you.
Quoting Apollodorus
Oh boy. EU siloviki. As if those bureaucrats in Brussels that make the EU are military & intelligence people. :snicker:
It may well have been your original comment.
However, your following comments were exactly as I stated:
1. Quoting ssu
After which you admitted that Finland isn't any better when I pointed out to you that both China and Finland are well below replacement level:
2. Quoting ssu
As you can see for yourself, that is the chronological order of your two statements. Statement 1 is first in relation to Statement 2.
As for "siloviki", it was your own choice of words!
If you don't like the sound of "EU siloviki" try "EU bureaucrats", "EU apparatchiks" or "EU stooges". It's all the same to me. :grin:
Anyway, if you think that China is the enemy of the West, then I don't think it makes sense to advocate conflict between Russia and the West. It certainly makes no sense to do so just because Finns hate Russians.
The pandemic has already caused a lot of tension in the West and the last thing we need is more division and hatred.
The way I see it, it makes far more sense for Russia and the West to cooperate against China.
What you preposterously call "reality check" is just more anti-Russian propaganda.
The fact of the matter is that it was the West who attacked Russia under Napoleon who wanted a "United States of Europe" ruled by himself. Now itâs his successors, the EU, UK, and US who are starting a war allegedly to âsaveâ Ukraine from Russia but in reality to promote EU and NATO expansion with a view to getting their hands on Russian oil and gas.
Ordinary Westerners have nothing to gain from this. Oil and gas arenât going to be cheaper. The only winners will be Western oil corporations and arms manufacturers. And China.
If you think about it, if Africa, India, and America donât want to be ruled by the EU, why should Russia? Expecting Russia to surrender to the EU (and NATO) is just illogical IMO.
Indeed it was. Which you replied as a counterargument about Finland:
Quoting Apollodorus
Ooh, the finger waving in just mentioning an issue!!!
Quoting Apollodorus
I thought so, you don't pick up the nuance. But to understand present Russia, it's important to know just what a "silovik" means:
Do notice the difference to your usual bureaucrat: Putin's Russia is a very different animal compared to especially to the EU or Western democracies. This is crucial in understanding Russia. In the West, it's perhaps a general doing a table excersize who looks at the possibility of war, yet the actual politicians are in the realm of trade, economic issues, climate change etc. In Russia as the siloviks, the force men in their power ministries look first and foremost every issue from the security/military perspective. Authoritarians need a reason for their "special powers" and for Putin there simply has to be an enemy that is lurking to attack Russia.
Quoting Apollodorus
Again with your nonsensical and imaginary accusations. I have not said China is the enemy of the West or that Finns hate Russians. This is simply nonsense. That Russians have Putin doesn't make Russians themselves at all bad.
Quoting Apollodorus
Just what is propaganda in saying:
1)The Warsaw Pact collapsed.
2)The Soviet Union collapsed.
3) The countries that emerged from those wrecks wanted to join the EU and NATO.
What is the "anti-Russian propaganda" in that? And Russia has now annexed parts of Ukraine and Georgia, so the incentive to join EU and NATO was obvious. Sorry, but these are simply facts.
Your total inability to understand that the various European countries are independent actors and have their own incentives to join either EU or NATO just shows how willing someone is to assume real propaganda.
If the EU, of all entities, is out there to "get their hands on Russian oil and gas", why did they let then Norway stay out of the union, not to join the EU? It has a lot of oil. Norway had it's talks on joining the EU same time Sweden and Finland had, but opted out. Germany with Helmut Kohl surely wanted all Nordic countries to join the EU. If the EU is conspiring to get oil, why didn't it start with small Norway? Has to be easier than Russia!
(Both in 1972 and in 1994 Norway decided not to join the EU. Pro-EU posters in Norway before the 1994 referendum.)
But the will of these small countries seems not to matter as according to you, it's all a EU / NATO power grab against the Russians. The fault seems by your thinking purely lie in the West.
Quoting Apollodorus
Now you are forgetting Hitler. First, Napoleon, then Hitler, and Russians aren't going to stand idle for a third invasion. That's the modern Slavophile line which Putin also cherishes. That is the passive-agressive reasoning that the leaders in the Kreml use, yet then go on with annexing parts of Ukraine and Georgia. And of course, it's all because of the evil West with it's sinister intentions!
Now, I'm not at all sure if Putin has any intention to enlargen the war that already he is fighting in Ukraine. Many times the West has been worried about the Zapad excersizes with Belarus. That's why I have said (on a different thread) that this all seems to be sabre rattling. Hopefully things calm down.
Quoting Apollodorus
Again, who is talking about a surrender to EU? This is a totally illogical narrative. If Norway can handle it's own oil wealth how it wants, I'm sure a nuclear armed state can easily hold on to it's natural resources, as it has.
As usual, obvious propaganda, distortion, and disinformation. Posting a few irrelevant pictures might make your argument more âcredibleâ among Finnish school kids, but not in the real world. You are free to think otherwise if it makes you happy, though. :grin:
I for one can see no difference between the propaganda of what you call âRussian silovikiâ and the propaganda of EU activists and agitators. But if you insist on ânuanceâ, the fact that the latter seem to be even more blinded by fanaticism than the former comes to mind.
Anyway, my original statement was this:
The head of MI6 does not normally make public statements of the sort (or of any sort). The statement is highly unusual and it makes two main points that I think are relevant to the OP and to my other comment.
First, it says that China is the âsingle greatest priorityâ. Second, it says "We're not trying to encircle Russia, we're not trying to prevent it from pursuing its legitimate interest." But thatâs exactly what EU and NATO expansion is doing. And yet MI6 says that Russia is an âacute threatâ to the UK!
Moreover, the MI6 statement was made at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and at the same time foreign secretary Liz Truss attended a NATO meeting in Latvia where she said that âwe will stand with our fellow democracies against Russiaâs malign activityâ.
Latvia is right on Russiaâs border, along with Belarus and Ukraine that the West would like to see incorporated into the EU and NATO.
MI6 a.k.a. SIS, of course, is the same outfit that in 2003 fabricated âevidenceâ purporting to show "beyond reasonable doubt" that Saddam Hussein had âweapons of mass destructionâ that could reach London within 45 minutes, as an excuse for the West to invade Iraq and seize its oil fields.
Fortunately, we now know better as the British governmentâs own Iraq Inquiry found that it was all a pack of lies:
Chilcot report: Findings at-a-glance â BBC News
Another example is the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 on the pretext that the Serbs were perpetrating âgenocideâ on the Albanians of Kosovo. In reality, there was no genocide. The Albanians had fled over the border to Albania and returned safely when the armed conflict ended.
The standard excuse used by the West to bomb or invade any country at will seems to be âweapons of mass destruction (WMDs)â, âattacks on civiliansâ, âactions that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanityâ, âgenocideâ, etc., often on very flimsy evidence and sometimes, as you can see for yourself, on evidence that is utterly false.
In the same vein, you conveniently forget that it isnât Russia that is encircling NATO but NATO encircling Russia.
It isnât Russia that is expanding but NATO and the EU.
Russia is reacting the same way America would react if Mexico and Canada were to enter into a military alliance with Russia, China, or any other rival power.
The fact is that Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia have very close historical, cultural and linguistic ties, all of them being linked with the Kievan Rus:
Kievan Rusâ - Wikipedia
The disputed areas in Ukraine like Crimea have Russian-majority populations. So it isnât as if the Russians are invading England or France for those countries to feel threatened by Russia. And it's got absolutely nothing to do with America.
If Ukraine has a right to be independent from Russia, then Russian-inhabited parts of Ukraine have the right to be independent from Ukraine.
And yes, it was Napoleon who came up with the idea of a âUnited States of Europeâ and who, as is well known, invaded and tried to conquer Russia, not the other way round.
The Westâs plan to create a âUnited States of Europeâ and incorporate Russia into it has a long history.
Even communism - which supported the idea of a âUnited States of Europeâ - was introduced into Russia from the West.
But it takes EU-activists from Finland to deny established historical fact. In the final analysis, there is not one jot of objectivity in what you are saying.
Again, just what is propaganda in saying:
1)The Warsaw Pact collapsed.
2)The Soviet Union collapsed.
3) The countries that emerged from those wrecks wanted to join the EU and NATO.
Nope, you went on from EU to M16 (which is now an intelligence service of a country not even part of the EU) to Saddam Hussein, bombing of Serbia, and even to the Kievan Rus!
Wow. :grin:
At least later, you do come to the actual subject.
Quoting Apollodorus
And here's perfectly shown just how you think.
What Mexico or Canada think doesn't matter. Not to you. Seems you are totally incapable of understanding that there is a difference of voluntary membership and straight forward occupation. Because in truth neither countries (Mexico and Canada) are really worried about the US invading them now. Wars between these countries happened in the 19th Century with an addition of one punitive raid into Mexico during the Civil War. Not like the US had been occupying them in the 20th Century.
Hence you conveniently forget totally all the reasons just why countries close to Russia would feel threatened by it. Again, the annexations of parts of Georgia and Ukraine seem not to matter to you. They have been the reasons for the change. In truth the EU and the West would have been all too happy to have good relations with Russia. Of course, you don't remember the Obama administration trying to "reset" the relations after the Russo-Georgian war.
The above issue simply cannot be understated enough. EU membership is voluntary. European countries like Norway and Switzerland have opted out of it, and the UK had it's Brexit. So is NATO. Warsaw Pact membership wasn't voluntary. Only Yugoslavia and Albania stayed out of it as simply the Red Army didn't occupy the countries.
If you want those kind of examples of the US/West forcing states to be their allies, then it would be present-day Iraq and the former administration of Afghanistan, that were put by force by the US into power. That surely was not voluntary membership.
Well, Afghanistan collapsed in a spectacular rapid fashion and Iraq has very cool and strained relations with the US. And if you would remember, even if the US did assist in the opposition overthrowing the Super-Serb Slobodan Milosevic, then Serbia didn't become an ally of the US, but now has close ties with Russia. Might have been that bombing of Serbia that made them not to be so hot about the West. But how smaller countries behave doesn't matter to you, there are only the pawns of the Great Powers it seems for you. Not independent actors, oh no!
What also has to be said is that in truth people would be OK with Russia putting down a Chechen independence movement, because they do know that there is a reason why there is Westphalian Sovereingty. But with sovereign countries, it's a bit different.
Quoting Apollodorus
And there you have it. It's OK to annex parts of other sovereign countries because they have Russian minorities. Plain and simple from you, @Apollodorus. (And btw, I don't think that England of France feel threatened from a Russian invasion. Plenty of country between them and Russia.)
As I said, more obvious disinformation, distortion, and black propaganda. And straw men!
The FACT is, I never said it was OK. What I said is that it doesnât threaten England, France, or America for them to attack Russia.
That England feels threatened by Russia was not my idea, either. It was what the British intelligence statement said which I quoted!
[b]And what you are trying to cover up is that Turkey, which is a NATO member, has invaded and occupied Cyprus, and no one does or says anything about it!
Why is it OK for NATO members like Turkey but not for Russia? I bet you canât answer even a simple question like that.[/b]
I think these are glaring double standards and complete lack of objectivity and impartiality on your part.
The fact is that I am neither Russian nor Finnish. So frankly, I think there is a greater chance of me being objective than you.
As a general rule, when analyzing a problem, it is common practice to start from objective observations.
In contrast, you are starting from political ideology and propaganda, as weâve seen from previous discussions. Itâs a well-known fact that pictures are a prime tool of propaganda and agitation, thatâs why you keep posting them instead of proper rational and fact-based arguments.
This EU of yours seems to be like a religion (or given the circumstances, like a death cult), and anyone who disagrees with it is âevilâ or, perhaps even worse than evil, âa Russian silovikâ!
As I have pointed out to you before, there are a number of serious problems with the EU. For starters, the EU is in demographic and cultural decline. An association of countries whose fertility rate has dropped from far above replacement level to well below that level within a few decades, cannot be deemed âsuccessfulâ, given that the existing trend leads to population decline and, eventually, to population extinction.
According to the European Commission, on the current trend, Europeâs population will rapidly age and decline.
The fact is that Europeâs fertility rate has fallen from 2.5 children per woman in the 1950âs to currently about 1.6:
Demographic Outlook for the European Union 2019 â European Parliament
Total fertility rate in Europe from 1950 to 2021 - Statista
Once a population has peaked, it will rapidly decline and reach a point of no return (or âfertility trapâ) that can only culminate in extinction or near-extinction within a matter of decades.
Obviously, there are differences from member state to member state. Some, like France and England, will probably take longer to decline. For others, e.g. in Eastern Europe, long-term extinction is pretty much guaranteed.
Romaniaâs population, for example, has fallen from 23 million in the late 1980âs to currently 19 million, with a fertility rate of 1.59.
These countries also have a high emigration rate which (1) accelerates the population decline and (2) shows that their situation has not improved as a result of EU membership.
Romaniaâs emigrant population is the fifth largest in the world and growing, OECD report finds â Business Review
Large European countries like Germany, France, and England, have been able to maintain their population levels only through mass immigration from other parts of Europe and from around the world.
In 2015, Germany recorded 2.137 million immigrants arriving in the country, many of them from the Mid East, and about 1 million Germans leaving.
China is projected to decline rapidly from currently 1.4 billion but it will still have a population of about 800 million in 2100 which is sufficient to dominate the West for the rest of the century.
Future population projections by country, 1970 to 2100 â Our World in Data
The EU also has a high unemployment rate (6.7%) compared to America (4.2%) and Russia (4.3%). In some European countries unemployment is very high, e.g. France (8.1%) Italy (9.4%), Greece (13%) and Spain (14.5%).
The EU is increasingly dependent on China and other anti-European and anti-Western dictatorships like Turkey.
There is a growing trend in Europe for people to be more concerned with âsaving the environmentâ than with saving themselves. Which rather shows that they are out of touch with reality.
In sum, Europe is a bit of a joke, really. Not an example to emulate, but to avoid at all costs. I think Biden is making a big mistake if he gangs up with Europe against Russia instead on focusing on China.
So, as far as I am concerned, you can keep your propaganda to yourself. :smile:
I've asked you now many times just what was false or propaganda in the statement I made.
So I gather that you think that stating the following:
Quoting ssu
...Is disinformation, anti-Russian propaganda, distortion.
Quoting Apollodorus
Try sometimes that! It's healthy.
But I guess the West trying to do everything to get Russia's natural resources is the conspiracy theory you cherish so much it's needless to continue. Anything contrary or even just another point of view to this I guess is "anti-Russian propaganda".
Quoting Apollodorus
Ok, how for an OBJECTIVE ANSWER starting like with the fact that we have not discussed Turkey and Cyprus!
But going for those strawmen as you do, you are already saying that I'm trying to cover up that. Guess by that thinking, there's a lot of history I'm "trying to cover up", because we haven't discussed all history.
Let's start from the actual facts, that you find so annoying. Turkey did not actually annex Northern Cyprus as Russia did with Crimea and South Ossetia, just as the rest of Cyprus isn't part of Greece. But let's look at the situation more (before you accuse me of something and not bother to read more...)
The simple fact is that Cyprus conflict is obviously a conflict involving two NATO countries, or should we say three (as the UK still has bases in Cyprus and has been involved in this mess from the start). That isn't a thing that NATO's article 5 was there to deal with in the first place. I would say the real reason for the problems in Cyprus is thanks to the British (again, no surprise there). So when the Greek junta gave the go ahead for the 1974 Cypriot coup d'Ă©tat (which the UN saw as illegal), Turkey saw that the Treaty of Guarantee between Cyprus, Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom was broken. The rest is history. The US of course tried to mediate the issue. (I wonder where else has there been a British protectorate where thanks partly to the Brits two ethnic groups have started a conflict at each other and then neighboring countries have tried to fill the vacuum when the British have left? :wink: )
More likely the fact has been that because the two countries, Greece and Turkey, have been in NATO, they didn't continue from where they left it in 1922 now with the island of Cyprus.
Needless to say that this isn't the only occasion that US allies have nearly gone to war at each other. The GCC members ought to be allies with the US and with each other (yet it nearly came down to a military conflict). Even Iceland and the UK had their feud about fishing rights with the Cod Wars.
And demographics?
(Hmm... do you know something about Russian demographics? I guess I shouldn't go there with you.)
How China saved Capitalism. This thread plays into a feint by the US at taking control of Chinese finance and technical innovation. It won't work, and it is dangerous.
Be afraid. It's what your masters want. It keeps you malleable.
Absolutely. Itâs a well-known fact that propaganda consists of a mixture of truth and falsehood.
The fact that you got one sentence right does NOT mean that the whole text or narrative is right!
As for distortion, I have just demonstrated that you are deliberately distorting my statements in the first place, so I donât need to repeat myself.
I can understand that you have this fixation with Russia. Being from Finland, you probably feel that the EU has somehow âsavedâ you from the âevilâ Russians, or whatever.
However, as we have seen, the EU hasnât really saved you, as demographic projections indicate that soon you will be extinct or close to extinction.
In any case, it doesnât validate your arguments, which was the point I was making.
In fact, they are not even arguments. They are just rhetorical questions and straw men.
To say that âRussian siloviki say soâ, is NOT an argument. As I already explained to you, the fact that Russian âsilovikiâ or Russians in general say something, does not mean that it isnât true. There is no logical connection between one thing and the other.
Here is your âlogicâ:
A. Someone makes Statement âSâ.
B. But thatâs what Russian siloviki say.
C. Therefore, âSâ cannot be true.
You may not realize this, but the conclusion C does not follow from the premises A and B.
The same applies to Cyprus. I knew you would be unable to give an honest answer to a simple question, and you proved me right by resorting to more illogical statements.
To claim that if Turkey invades and occupies Cyprus without annexing it, is OK but that if Russia invades, occupies, and annexes Crimea, it is not OK is just too preposterous even for EU-activists like yourself.
By your logic, if Sweden invaded and occupied Finland without annexing it, that would be a legitimate operation!
In historical terms, the plain truth is that compared to other European powers like England and France, Russia has been remarkably non-aggressive. Unlike England, France, or Spain, Russia has never had a world empire built by African slaves.
Russia became mildly aggressive only after being attacked by the West, used by England and France to fight their wars on rival powers, and converted to communism by the West.
This is why I pointed out to you that it was Napoleon who invaded Russia and that the âUnited States of Europeâ was Napoleonâs idea that was carried on by the founders of the EU who actually called their project âUnited States of Europeâ.
The âFather of the EUâ Jean Monnet set up the Action Committee for the United States of Europe (ACUSE) to realize his project:
The role of the Action Committee for the United States of Europe â University of Luxembourg
As I pointed out to you, the EU actually aimed to incorporate Russia into its union in the 1990âs.
A first step in this direction was the 1997 EUâRussia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), that included financial, economic, and cultural cooperation as well as political dialogue, and expressly aimed to âprovide an appropriate framework for the gradual integration between Russia and a wider area of cooperation in Europeâ.
Full text here:
EUâRussia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, Document 21997A1128(01) - EURLex
Putin stopped that just in time, otherwise Russia would be now taking orders from Brussels, like you do.
All facts considered, it is the EU (and NATO) that are expanding, not Russia.
Your reply is that âthis is what Russians sayâ. This is your standard method (or tactic) of argumentation. You are dismissing and trying to sweep under the carpet any fact that is inconvenient to your political agenda.
Incidentally, according to the UN, Finns are the âhappiest nation in the worldâ. Presumably, awareness of the fact that you are heading for extinction is one of the causes. Or perhaps itâs a case of âignorance is blissâ?
In any case, if believing your own propaganda makes you happy, feel free to talk to yourself. I donât want to hold you back.
Oh, and donât forget to post some more pictures to âproveâ that your propaganda is true. Reindeer and Santa Claus would be just perfect âŠ. :rofl:
So, for you the statements
1)The Warsaw Pact collapsed.
2)The Soviet Union collapsed.
3) The countries that emerged from those wrecks wanted to join the EU and NATO.[/quote]
is "well-known fact that propaganda consists of a mixture of truth and falsehood". Again wow. Wonder where you see the propaganda, but oh well.
Quoting Apollodorus
And here again it's seen how utterly incapable you are noticing the actual answer given, which was that it was three NATO members entangled in this issue (Cyprus) and hence obviously NATO is not for this (internal squabbles) and the US will likely try to mediate and not pick sides. That with Ukraine there was the OSCE Bupadest Memorandum on Security Assurances, that obviously one side broke it as Ukraine's political collapse made an opening for annexation would be rather different. doesn't I guess for you matter at all. As I should have predicted, you either don't understand that, or simply aren't even remotely bothered to actually to respond to. Hardly worth wile to make real arguments when the other simply doesn't read them.
So it's meaningless to continue with this babble as you are utterly incapable of anything else than changing the subject and make baseless accusations without even the remotest effort to try to show just where the other one is wrong. Or so desperate to win this argument. It's just shows that those crying the loudest of propaganda are themselves usually the victims of propaganda.
Quoting Apollodorus
And Merry Christmas to you too. :sparkle:
I'm not "changing the subject" at all. It's a complex issue and you seem to be confused. So Iâll explain it to you one last time.
My actual position is pro-Western and pro-European.
Turkey is anti-European and anti-Western, and Europe's enemy No 1.
Therefore I am against Turkey.
Russia is a close ally of Turkey and, in that sense, anti-European and anti-Western.
So you can see for yourself that I cannot possibly be âpro-Russianâ.
However, I am qualifying the above with the following caveats:
1. Russia is siding with Turkey (and with other dictatorships) because of the pressure Europe and the West are putting on it.
2. In terms of the wider geopolitical competition between the West and China, I think the logical thing to do would be for the West and Russia to bury their differences, at least for the time being, and form a united front against China (which, by the way, need not lead to military conflict).
So you are totally misconstruing my position.
Anyway, your own Prime Minister has just publicly apologized for her âlack of judgementâ. This suggests to me, as it should suggest to you, that your blind belief in your leaders might be less justified than you think.
If we look at some EU statistics, we find some interesting facts:
Only 56% of EU citizens (and 49% of Finns) identify with being European.
Up to 28% do not identify with being European at all.
The rest are noncommittal.
Even more interesting is the following finding:
Do you trust politicians? - Debating Europe
And this:
The Joint Research Centreâs new report calls for the systematic consideration of values and identities in EU policymaking - EU Science Hub
Record 60% of Europeans âtend not to trustâ EU â Euractiv
So the European Commissionâs own data show that:
1. A large percentage of EU citizens do not identify with being European.
2. An even larger percentage do not trust their political leaders.
3. There is a discrepancy between official EU values and the values held by the people.
This means that (a) there are legitimate reasons to be critical of the EU and (b) not every EU critic is a âRussian silovikâ.
In any case, what you are presenting there is an obviously false narrative. This is not necessarily your fault. You may have been indoctrinated to hold those beliefs. Your fault lies in being unwilling to critically examine your beliefs.
As regards NATO, the fact remains that NATO was created by England and America as an explicitly anti-Russian, Atlanticist organization intended to represent Atlanticist interests. Thatâs why itâs called âNATOâ (âNorth Atlantic Treaty Organizationâ) which refers to the North Atlantic countries England, Canada, and America.
Atlanticism was a joint project of England, Canada, and America designed to represent oil interests. The Atlanticist Movement was headed by Paul Cravath who was an employee of Standard Oil subsidiary Globe Oil.
Atlanticism - Wikipedia
This is not Russian or âsilovikâ propaganda. It is generally accepted fact as shown by Wikipedia articles and other mainstream sources on the subject.
From the very start, NATO represented Western, especially Anglo-American, oil interests. And its purpose, as stated by its first secretary-general, Lord Ismay, was to âkeep the Americans in and the Russians outâ.
It is beyond dispute that in geopolitical terms, there is growing competition between the Russian and Euro-Atlantic spheres of influence. This is precisely why NATO and the EU are expanding, to expand Euro-Atlantic (or EU-UK-US) influence!!!
As already stated, it all began with Napoleon, a delusional man who imagined that he could rule the world and who murdered millions of people in pursuit of his megalomaniac ambitions. His âUnited States of Europeâ plan backfired, France lost, becoming a second-rate power, and England and Germany took over.
Next, England and France used Russia to get rid of Germany but they lost their own empires.
They are now getting kicked out of Africa because of their colonial past and Russia is moving in. This is the true reason why they are ganging up on Russia.
England and France have been predatory entities for centuries. It is absurd to claim that they wouldnât like to get their hands on Russian oil and gas if they had the chance.
The idea is that if they dismantle Russia piece by piece and seize its resources, then they will no longer need Africa which is turning against the West and toward the East.
However, if Russia falls, China will likely become the next superpower. So I think the plan is going to backfire for Europe and for the West in general.
But the main problem is Biden. He is an old man with health problems. He is also a vindictive man who would love to see Russia being âpunishedâ for allegedly siding with Trump. If he allows himself to be pushed by Europe and other vested interests (military industrial complex, etc.) into waging war on Russia, I donât think it is going to end well for the world in the long term. And that includes Finland â or whatâs left of it.
But, as I said, if you prefer to take a blinkered, frog-in-the-well approach to geopolitical issues, thatâs your choice and your problem.
Merry Christmas & regards to Sanna and to Joulupukki! :wink:
Why start with portraying countries as enemy No 1? It's been a long time since the Ottomans were trying to take Vienna. And do remember that they do have their history of Western aggression and the West wanting to divide into colonies the whole of their country. The whole westernization of the AtatĂŒrk era was first and foremost done to make the country strong enough to defend the country from outside aggression and not be "the sick man of Europe".
I don't view Russia as the enemy. Russia under Putin simply has a very aggressive stance in the defence of it's "near abroad". In truth likely a less aggressive stance would have in the long run been better, just as it played out in Central Asia. Russia patiently waited for the US simply to leave...and it did so. No US bases in Central Asian countries anymore. And the countries are in good relations with Russia, because it hasn't done any annexations there.
Let's not forget that both Russia (and Turkey as the Ottoman Empire) were Empires that collapsed. Nobody really wants these empires back, just as there's no intention of getting back the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Soviet Union just gave time for the Russian Empire to continue, but still, the empire was an assortment of very different people. You have to be a political Houdini to get people that speak different languages, are from different religions and have different cultures to somehow belong to one nation. Or in other words, the Russification of the Empire failed. Russia had that problem (and earlier the Ottomans). Yet when you start from the view that as there was this Empire, Russia has special privileges over former parts of the empire, you obviously end up in conflict. Yet the idea that you indeed have this "sphere of influence" is the imperialist cause you are holding onto. And basically you are accepting this imperialist view that some nations have "spheres of influence" over others.
Quoting Apollodorus
Well, I view myself as an EU critic as I think it is absolutely detrimental and damaging that EU leaders are trying to make EU a US-style federation. It simply won't work. They should be happy with basically a loose confederation that they have now.
Quoting Apollodorus
There's actually a lot more interests than just oil. This is too simplistic.
Quoting Apollodorus
Yet do notice the limits. You really have to be a very vulnerable, poor country basically incapable of performing the most basic task of a sovereign state and YES, then Great Powers like France or England will be all over you like vultures. But again, remember Norway.
As I said, Russia with it's nuclear arsenal is quite capable of stopping Western influence over it's own resources.
Quoting Apollodorus
Now this is way far fetched. First of all, the Soviet Union had far more influence in Africa than Russia ever has now. Russia has only so many resources, so they pick their allies. So I don't buy this argument of Russia "moving in" to Africa. Syria is one and in Africa it's basically Algeria and some parts, but there isn't a large presence of Russian forces in Africa. The one country that has a large footprint in Africa is France as it basically never left it colonies, actually. With the exception of Algeria, of course.
Not âportrayingâ, identifying.
Itâs just common sense. Thatâs what everyone does in the real world. Itâs called situational awareness.
England and France have identified Germany and Russia as their enemies and are using America to keep those countries down. Thatâs the principle on which NATO itself operates. As stated by its own founders, the idea behind NATO was to âkeep the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans downâ.
And yes, it wasnât just Atlanticism that was initiated by oil (and banking) interests, but NATO itself.
It is a well-known fact that the US administration in the 1940âs and 50âs was dominated by oil and associated interests (banking and business). Here are some examples:
Grenville Clark, founder of Wall Street law firm Root & Clark, Standard Oil representatives, confidential counsel to Secretary of War Stimson.
Felix Frankfurter, co-founder and partner, Root & Clark, presidential adviser to F. D. Roosevelt.
Henry L. Stimson, partner, Root & Clark, Secretary of War.
Robert P. Patterson, partner, law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, Under Secretary, later Secretary of War.
John J. McCloy, associate, Cravath, Henderson, & de Gersdorff, later Milbank, Tweed & Hope, Rockefeller lawyers, Assistant Secretary of War, President of the World Bank, US High Commissioner for Occupied Germany.
James V. Forestall, Dillon, Read & Co., stoke brokers with close links to the petroleum industry and acting for the Rockefellers, Secretary of the Navy and the first Secretary of Defence.
In 1940, Clark and Frankfurter advised F. D. Roosevelt to hire Stimson as Secretary of War.
Stimson hired friends and associates like McCloy, Patterson, Robert A. Lovett (partner, Brown Brothers Harriman), Harvey H. Bundy (partner, Putnam, Putnam & Bell), and others.
Forestall recruited his own team of Dillon, Read colleagues and associates.
Also in 1940, Roosevelt appointed Nelson Rockefeller Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs and later Assistant Secretary of State for American Republic Affairs.
In 1941, Roosevelt introduced the idea of âFour Policemen or Sheriffsâ (America, England, China, Russia) to police the world.
In 1945, at the instigation of the US Administration, the Four Powers convened the UN Conference on International Organization in San Francisco.
The Conference was dominated by the US State Department, with Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., the Chairman of the US Delegation, also chairing the Steering and Executive Committees of the Conference.
In turn, Stettinius was advised by Nelson Rockefeller and Rockefeller men with connections to the Rockefellersâ Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Rockefeller-associated intelligence community, like Dean G. Acheson (Stimsonâs protĂ©gĂ© and director of the Reckefellersâ CFR), John Foster Dulles (brother of Central Intelligence director Allen Dulles), and Charles Yost (who had been on the Board of Economic Warfare).
At the Conference, Rockefeller demanded that that there should be a strong system of Western Hemisphere defense, and recommended the formation of regional pacts for the purpose. The result was the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance (RIO Pact), established in 1947, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), established in 1949, and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), established in 1954.
Acheson was the main architect of NATO and signed the treaty for America. Later that year, during a meeting of the Allied Occupation Powers in West Germany, he put a gun to French foreign minister Schumanâs head, ordering him to form a United States of Europe with Germany (the European Coal and Steel Community that formed the core of the EU), and was involved in the creation of the West German government together with McCloy and other Rockefeller operatives.
So there is no doubt that representatives and associates of oil interests not only ran the War Department all through the war, but also became the key architects of American national security policy after the war. They were the managers and technicians of that policy and they built the structures through which that policy was implemented, the intellectual concepts, the rhetoric, the alliances, the military and intelligence networks, etc. And this, of course, includes NATO.
Incidentally, in 1952 President-Elect Eisenhower asked Rockefeller to chair the Advisory Committee on Government Organization to recommend ways of improving efficiency and effectiveness of the executive branch of the federal government. Rockefeller recommended thirteen reorganization plans, especially in the Department of Defense and Office of Defense Mobilization, all of which were implemented.
Nelson A. Rockefeller - Rockefeller Archive Center
The United Nations Conference on International Organization, San Francisco, California, April 25âJune 26, 1945 â Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS)
Minutes of the Third Five-Power Informal Consultative Meeting on Proposed Amendments (Part I), Held at San Francisco, Saturday, May 12, 1945 - FRUS
Together with RIO and SEATO, NATO enabled America, England, and France to intervene anywhere in the world to advance their political and economic interests by military means.
The other facts are as follows:
1. Finland is getting loans from EIB (European Investment Bank) and other forms of financial assistance from the EU. So this would be one good reason for Finns to uncritically follow the EUâs anti-Russian (and pro-China) stance.
2. Finland is located on the outskirts of Europe and has little contact with, or knowledge of, the rest of the continent.
3. Turkey is a neo-fascist dictatorship responsible for invading and occupying other countriesâ territory (Cyprus, Syria, Iraq) in addition to fostering violence against ethnic and religious minorities, suppressing women, sponsoring terror organizations like Hamas, etc.
No one invaded the Turks. It was the Seljuk Turks who came from Central Asia to invade Iran, Iraq, and most of the Mid East, after which they invaded Anatolia which was inhabited by Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, and other local populations:
Seljuk Empire â Wikipedia
And donât forget the genocides perpetrated by Turks on Armenians and Greeks. If your idea of history is to deny and distort historical facts, donât expect to be taken seriously.
Anyway, given that Turkey invaded and occupied Cyprus, and China invaded, occupied, and annexed Tibet with impunity, it doesnât make sense to call for war on Russia for annexing Crimea.
Clearly, there is a conflict of interests between the Russian and Euro-Atlantic spheres of influence, and the West is seeking to end this conflict by military means. This is why NATO has been constantly expanding and encircling Russia, having incorporated 14 new countries since the end of the Cold War.
This is why to claim that Russia is âthreatening the Westâ is pure black propaganda motivated by economic interests, i.e. greed, and exposes the ugly face of out-of-control monopolistic capitalism.
What countries joining the EU and NATO donât realize until years later (when it is too late), is that they are being made economically and politically dependent on the interests behind these organizations.
All this sabre rattling against Russia is motivated by oil and military-industrial interests, and is pushing Russia closer to China and India, exactly as I said. And this can only be to the detriment of the West.
Putin and Xi to discuss 'aggressive' talk from U.S. and NATO - Reuters
Russia's Rosneft and Indian Oil sign 2022 crude supply deal â Reuters
IMO it makes much more sense for the West and Russia to be allies instead of enemies.
So... when it comes to Russia, it's all a hoax, anti-Russian or russophobe propaganda, Russia is the one under attack, but with Turkey, it's the real enemy! And that's just common sense according to you. :roll:
Well, I would leaving calling any country an enemy only to when you are in a real war with the country. Otherwise depicting other people and countries as enemies or "anti-European and anti-Western, and Europe's enemy No 1." is counterproductive. Such cries will only make Turks afraid of the "evil West". The time when Islam was a real threat to "the West" is the time of Charles Martell and perhaps the early stages of the Ottoman Empire. Not now when Turkey is facing extremely diffucult economic times. An immigration as the fifth column? Humbug.
Quoting Apollodorus
Never understate the distrust of the West that the Russian present day "slavophiles" have. Likely those who in the West promote ideas like these are viewed as "useful idiots".
Basically after the Kosovo War that alliance would be one hard issue. And after the annexations of Crimea and South Ossetia, even harder. Of course, Putin might be deposed, but I don't think any opposition leader that could get into the Kremlin will hardly run to the West. The window of opportunity for real alliance with the West was just after the Soviet Union collapsed. But then two things happened: 1) the haughty West thought Russia was finished and 2) a KGB-colonel and FSB director came into power in Russia. That Russia was accepted (for some time) in the G7 countries making it the G8 and Russia having ties to NATO happened briefly then.
One simply would have to had greater than life politicians both in the West and in Russia to make the great alliance between the US and Russia. Of course, the US having Russia as it's closest ally would make anyone scared shitless of this juggernaut. For "the War on Terror" Russia would have been the perfect ally that the US would want. An ability to take losses, a large intelligence service, capability to project power to other continents would be what the US would want... if the ally would see eye to eye US objectives. Yet that would have taken a larger than life Russian politician to make the country accept it's role as the new "UK" and not anymore a superpower, but just a great power like France and UK (perhaps combined).
It's really a thing for alternate history now.
I think I more or less agree with your statement. When one is a superpower it is almost always a hard time to keep one's manufacturing sector, infrastructure, social programs, etc. as good as other developed countries who DON'T have to spend as much as you do on your military. A good example of this is pre-WWII Britain who was constantly having to deal with the issue of having the strongest navy and yet overtax or underspend on other sectors while doing so. I think the problem kind of boils down to is in the short term it is easier to spend on the military then the private sector or at least until everything starts falling apart like it did in Russia at the end of the Cold War.
Yes. Japan used biological weapons against Chinese during the war with the infamous unit 731. And killed Japanese soldiers also, but that naturally happens when you do something as stupid as use biological weapons.
From this we come to the reason just why in the first place Russia, US and China (and others) have had bioweapon-programs: first and foremost to anticipate what the possible enemy can do. It's a devilish way how to justify one's own research something that is as a weapon utterly crazy.
So with the Youtube-video I would be extremely cautious or sceptical. It argues that the Chinese trying to make "racial targetting" bioweapons. This guy is a China-commentator and even if he has made some nice videos about ordinary life in China, but here he is talking about things where he obviously is a layman. But if you find other credible sources saying similar, I can change my mind. The conspiracy theory of COVID being a bioweapon put out there by China is so bizarre that likely it's used to discredit any talk of the lab leak hypothesis, which is a genuine possibility.
I remember there were earlier allegations made that South Africa was developing such "race-targetting" bioweapons. Well, the Apartheid-era South African "Project Coast" is now over and quite much literature is there about it and what little I have glossed over doesn't tell of anything as crazy as this. Blacks were targeted or planned to be targeted, but with bioweapons that would harm whites too.
To be honest, I can't find any reliable source that says they know about any bio-weapons or programs working on such that are designed to target any specific race. That shouldn't be too much of a surprise since such weapons and programs would be classified as the highest of state secrets and since China is almost a police state in and of itself it would be hard for anyone outside of the US or some other countries spy agency to be able to access such information. so public knowledge of such is not likely.
However, it should be noted that one doesn't really need to even develop such a weapon to have such much of the desired effect since if a country that develops a virus has either a vaccine and/or other measures in place that can lessen the effect before a virus was released, they could minimize the harm in their own country. In many ways that is what has happened with Cov-ID, while the rest of the world has been trying to deal the virus China has been trying to take advantage of the situation to undermine the US and her allies in order to strengthen their own position as a world super power.
While it is hard to prove that China deliberately created the Cov-ID to create the havoc that it has, it isn't so hard to prove that they are trying to take advantage of situation caused by the mess that they made. While it may seem like only crackpots would believe that China would create and use viruses or other bioweapons to their own advantage, I think the current situation proves that they are not really above doing it if they are really motivated to do so. Take that with the fact that on many occasions the people in power in China have publicly said that they are ready to do anything in the near future in order to secure their place as the world's most powerful superpower and I'd say that it is a problem waiting to happen as long as China (and possibly like minded groups with vast resources as well) isn't content until the rest of the world has to kowtow to their whims.
Well, I honestly believe that the lab-leak hypothesis is a real possibility. The Chinese officials surely did actively try to hide the pandemic and that they would try to manage the best outcome in this situation would be obvious.
I guess only Norway would be a country that would openly admit that they f**ed up and had a laboratory leak, and then willingly face the huge international outcry and pay compensation (and emptying their sovereign wealth fund from that).
Otherwise the strategy is to deny to the end. The more consistent you are in denials, the more logical and in the end truthful people think you are.
I think you are missing the point. The French are definitely upset that Russian mercenaries are operating in Mali and other parts of Africa and they are using this as an excuse to gang up on Russia together with Canada and other European countries.
France among 16 nations to hit out at deployment of Russian mercenaries in Mali â RFI
What France is forgetting to say is that the Russians only moved in after the French withdrew 5000 troops when their pointless âOperation Barkhaneâ proved to be a complete failure.
Macron is also upset because Russia is sponsoring the French opposition who has claimed that his wife is a man called Jean-Michel Trogneux:
Viral, French First Lady Brigitte Macron Rumored to be Born a Male â World Today
Marrying his teacher who is 24 years older than him does seem a bit odd and may help explain some of Macronâs strange personality traits. And personality, as is well-known, does influence political decisions.
And donât forget that America has an interest in creating discord between Europe and Russia so it can sell oil and gas to Europe instead of Europe buying from next-door Russia.
U.S. LNG Cargoes Flock To Europe Amid Record-High Gas Prices
So, who has to gain from this? US oil and gas corporations. And the military industrial complex, as usual. The same people who founded NATO, as I've already explained!
In any case, if the EU-US pressure on Russia continues, Russia will have no other choice than ally itself with China. They are already cooperating on space and military technology. If they come to some mutual defense agreement, this will vastly increase Chinaâs position in the world to the detriment of the West.
China-Russia Space Military â USAGM
Russia and China have already held military exercises together, China has been a large arms customer for Russia and the vast majority of both Russians and Chinese have favorable views of the others.
The conflict in Ukraine could pick up dramatically it's intensity as Putin has made tough statements against NATO.
But here's the issue. I notice that you are a firm believer of this idea foreign policy serves (and is dictated) by private companies. In the US this is a popular belief especially with the military-industrial establishment. And things like Dick Cheney being the CEO of Halliburton makes this argument quite credible.
But seems it hard for you to think that other people in other societies think differently. Russia is the case where national security and 19th Century power politics trumps economic issues and companies don't have much to say. Putin doesn't care of the stock market or individual companies, state security is paramount. He doesn't care about economic sanctions, he doesn't work for the oligarchs, the oligarchs take orders from the Kremlin or are in jail or exiled in their luxury condos in London or other places.
:chin: :up:
Then, again, maybe such an alliance has already been covertly discussed but rejected due to Chinese government strategists knowing how to âdivide and conquerâ potential alliance nations by using door-wedge economic/political leverage custom-made for each nation.
Indeed, perhaps every country typically placing its own economic and big business bottom-line interests foremost may always be its, and therefore collectively our, Achilles' Heel to be exploited by huge-market nations like China.
Meantime, our Western big businesses would still very much desire access to China's nearly 1.5 billion consumers. Weâve seen how the big-business representatives snivel whenever China gets agitated by thus implies potential banishment of any of them who dares refer to Hong Kong or Taiwan as anything other than belonging 100% to the Chinese motherland and Beijingâs whim.
Even then, China's restrictive control over its own business sector thus market may give it an edge over Western free-market nations.
American, Canadian [and perhaps British] governance, unlike China's, is heavily steered and therefore disadvantaged by corporate interests, sometimes through economic intimidation (and I'm not just talking about huge party donations come election time).
Itâs as though the elected heads are meant to represent huge money interests over those of the working citizenry and poor. Accordingly, major political decisions will normally foremost reflect what is in the influential corporationsâ best interests.
For example, if China gets offended, it can threaten to disallow/discontinue access by the offending Western nation's privately-owned big businesses to Chinaâs huge consumer base, the world's singularly largest. Predictably, the big businesses' corporate lobbyists will unleash their fullest manipulation efforts on their home-nation's government to capitulate to Beijing's demands. And China's control over its own industry/business sector thus market may even give it an additional edge over Western free-market nations.
Anyone who doubts the potent persuasion of huge business interests here need to consider how high-level elected officials can become crippled by implicit/explicit threats to transfer or eliminate jobs and capital investment, thus economic stability, if corporate ârequestsâ arenât met.
Itâs a crippling thatâs made even worse by a blaring news-media thatâs permitted to be naturally critical of incumbent governments, especially in regards to job and capital transfers and economic weakening.
Seriously, why wouldn't China take advantage of this Western-way weakness?
And if the West gets offended by Chinese actions, it can do the same to China which it did for Russia. And China is even more dependent of exports to the West and on resources that are imported across the sea lanes. Still.
With the war in Ukraine, have seen already that when it come to international politics, trade relations are of secondary importance in a deep crisis.
role of China's exports compared to India and the US:
But what are the goals? What should we measure when we are considering success?
Here are IQ statistics https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-iq-by-country