Remove this Banner Ad

Asia China's growing influence

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mofra
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

_Swoon said:
But they do ban political discussion if it isn't effusing praise on the CCP, which was my original point, but whatever. Seriously, the fact we have legal protection to slag off whichever government official we like in this forum and not face consequences for our beliefs is something that most people in the world have never known.
Click to expand...
That's not true either. The CCP has a fairly sophisticated and modern sense of censorship that's in some ways more hands off but insidious than straight banning of things. They've absorbed certain lessons of governance and modeled their politics on Singapore, which has the 'boiling pot' approach to governance. The CCP will allow a level of criticism on certain subjects, corruption, infrastructure, insufficient nationalism and so on, because that's part of the process of shaping opinion and aids technocrats in delivering what their subjects want, but they won't allow any internet discussion on say how to dismantle the system or whether Xi Jinping is a dictator or whether China should have it's own Arab Spring, and so on. They don't just use citizen censorship, which is a very blunt tool and causes anti-government resentment of its own. The CCP tightly controls the type of information and data about China collected by internal and external journalists and academics, so independent, critical external voices find it difficult to accurately describe certain issues that might make the CCP look bad, for example the Uyghur issue is all based on estimates from Western analysis. They also increasngly use incentives and punishments to push their citizens towards the point of just not thinking certain thoughts and being totally immersed in an information environment that supports the position that the CCP is the rightful ruler of China.
 
_Swoon said:
Yeah, sorry pal but just because you feel the gubmint doesn't represent you or there's certain wings of the government that you aren't a fan of doesn't equate to you not having it considerably better than at least three quarters of the world. I don't know your life story, but I've lived and worked in some seriously shitty countries in my time. We have it really good here.
Click to expand...

Your argument doesn’t follow mine, what’s that got to do with anything?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

_Wildcard_ said:
Russia is developing stronger military ties with Vietnam, for starters.
Click to expand...
Russia has been the current Vietnamese governments military supplier of choice since 1950. Cam Ranh Bay is open to all foreign warships in the area patrolling the SCS, it will never be a Russian naval base again. All of Vietnam is within the range of China's DF-21 and associated classes of sea-area-denial missiles. They face the exact same challenges in the SCS as the US but with less technological sophistication or numbers to solve that problem. No current Vietnamese naval forces could hope to seriously threaten China in the SCS until a technology is developed to intercept hypersonic missiles, and that will most likely come from the US.
 
No, Russia sent military envoys to Vietnam several months ago, in order to strengthen ties, ostensibly as a reaction to concerns over China's influence in the South China Sea. I'm not speaking only of traditional supply relationships, it's moved beyond that now. Russia is a supplier for Vietnam and has been for quite some time, yes, But that isn't the point, nor the issue.

China has been steadily and somewhat arrogantly expanding for some time now, and while the South China Sea might be the current focal point, there are others of concern - the Antarctic, being one. There are quite a few smaller nations in the region which would probably side with the USA in any direct conflict, and even Russia would be (are) watching closely.

Any notion that a flare-up in the South China Sea would involve only the USA and China is an over-simplification of the full military situation... even if Russia didn't get involved directly.
 
_Wildcard_ said:
No, Russia sent military envoys to Vietnam several months ago, in order to strengthen ties, ostensibly as a reaction to concerns over China's influence in the South China Sea. I'm not speaking only of traditional supply relationships, it's moved beyond that now. Russia is a supplier for Vietnam and has been for quite some time, yes, But that isn't the point, nor the issue.

China has been steadily and somewhat arrogantly expanding for some time now, and while the South China Sea might be the current focal point, there are others of concern - the Antarctic, being one. There are quite a few smaller nations in the region which would probably side with the USA in any direct conflict, and even Russia would be (are) watching closely.

Any notion that a flare-up in the South China Sea would involve only the USA and China is an over-simplification of the full military situation... even if Russia didn't get involved directly.
Click to expand...
Russia sent military envoys two years ago too, in order to strengthen ties...over new arms deals. There was very brief talk of Cam Ranh Bay being used as a Russian base again and once the Vietnamese finished laughing they shut that down. Moved beyond that now how? They've had intelligence sharing and very deep military cooperation for decades. You're talking out of your arse.

What Russia are doing is totally irrelevant to the point you made and I responded to. I made no statement on how a war would play out, or whether there would be a bandwagoning effect towards the US if China was the aggressor in a conflict. That's both obvious and now past tense. It's already happened. My original post said the Chinese were already in a secure position in the SCS. You said:
Against the Americans.
There are other players in the region, proximity with whom ensures the Chinese are far less secure militarily.
Click to expand...
Which is complete bullshit. The same strategic factors that have changed the balance of power in the South China Sea apply to the US and any number of regional allies they could engage. In the South China Sea there are no players, zero, that at this stage have the military capability to penetrate the Chinese anti-ship missile wall with surface naval vessels as would be required to militarily threaten or blockade the eastern seaboard of China as previously envisaged in a medium stakes confrontation, say over Taiwan. In military terms it wouldn't matter if all of ASEAN, Australia, Japan and the US got together, the US wouldn't risk losing half of their naval forces and all of their carriers in the first engagement. Until they build a reliable interceptor for hypersonic missile attack on surface naval assets, there's no point even pretending it's an option.
 
I think you need to make up your mind as to whether or not the Russia-Vietnam situation is merely arms suppliers or "deep military cooperation", because it seems to change depending on what you're trying to pull.
It doesn't matter whether or not Vietnam shut anything down. That the attempt was made, and much more recently than you're willing to admit, is evidence of Russia making very recent moves in Southeast Asia to shore up their own position in response, and it hasn't ended there either.

The Russians and Chinese have been "friends" for a few decades, born of anti-US sentiment and from a reasonable amount of co-operation and a lack of interference on the part of either in the South East Asian Region. That friendship is being tested a little by China's actions in the South China Sea (and, as noted, not only there) and you're being disingenuous here... and you know it.
 
_Wildcard_ said:
I think you need to make up your mind as to whether or not the Russia-Vietnam situation is merely arms suppliers or "deep military cooperation", because it seems to change depending on what you're trying to pull.
It doesn't matter whether or not Vietnam shut anything down. That the attempt was made, and much more recently than you're willing to admit, is evidence of Russia making very recent moves in Southeast Asia to shore up their own position in response, and it hasn't ended there either.

The Russians and Chinese have been "friends" for a few decades, born of anti-US sentiment and from a reasonable amount of co-operation and a lack of interference on the part of either in the South East Asian Region. That friendship is being tested a little by China's actions in the South China Sea (and, as noted, not only there) and you're being disingenuous here... and you know it.
Click to expand...
The Russians aren't just supplying the Vietnamese with guerrilla weapons, these are planes, radar, naval vessels, SAM, complicated platforms that require training to operate and operationalise. Deep military cooperation is a necessity of arms supply.

Russia asked Vietnam about the availability of Cam Ranh Bay as a permanent base in 2016, just like they do whenever they have their military dialogue going back to 2002 and even further back. Russia baulked at the price that Vietnam set to renew the lease, that was exorbitantly high intentionally, because Vietnam wanted to diversify their defence arrangements and set a clear policy about not having permanent bases from one nation.

To be honest, this is an incredibly tedious conversation like all your responses to me. You either completely misinterpret the argument being made or demand I admit something pointless and irrelevant. A poster before said, "there are no forums like this in China" which is not correct, and it's important to accurately describe how authoritarian governance works. Then you proudly strut up to the plate to tell me that just because they allow forums, doesn't mean they don't block other forms of social media, and to say otherwise means I'm an apologist for the CCP. You can see why I ignore most of your contributions. These conversations are DOA, you're only arguing with a strawman and I only have so much patience to walk you through why that's not what I'm saying, and just like this conversation here, it could go on forever with you saying "I think you're being disingenuous about Russia and Vietnam," and me saying that it has nothing to do with the original point being made that you replied to.

If you want to talk about the Russian and Vietnamese military cooperation, we can do that in a different thread. But the argument you're pursuing there is also not well informed.

In the future please either try harder to develop an argument on point, start a new discussion on what you would actually like to talk about, or don't waste my time.
 
So if I’m reading this right,

China gives munny to a country, that current generation (or just the people in power) get many many munny and enjoyment of the spoils.

Then the following generations are made to be slaves to work for this wealth. Why does Australia have a problem with this?

Seems like part of The Pacific kulture.
 
smokingjacket said:
The Russians aren't just supplying the Vietnamese with guerrilla weapons, these are planes, radar, naval vessels, SAM, complicated platforms that require training to operate and operationalise. Deep military cooperation is a necessity of arms supply.

Russia asked Vietnam about the availability of Cam Ranh Bay as a permanent base in 2016, just like they do whenever they have their military dialogue going back to 2002 and even further back. Russia baulked at the price that Vietnam set to renew the lease, that was exorbitantly high intentionally, because Vietnam wanted to diversify their defence arrangements and set a clear policy about not having permanent bases from one nation.

To be honest, this is an incredibly tedious conversation like all your responses to me. You either completely misinterpret the argument being made or demand I admit something pointless and irrelevant. A poster before said, "there are no forums like this in China" which is not correct, and it's important to accurately describe how authoritarian governance works. Then you proudly strut up to the plate to tell me that just because they allow forums, doesn't mean they don't block other forms of social media, and to say otherwise means I'm an apologist for the CCP. You can see why I ignore most of your contributions. These conversations are DOA, you're only arguing with a strawman and I only have so much patience to walk you through why that's not what I'm saying, and just like this conversation here, it could go on forever with you saying "I think you're being disingenuous about Russia and Vietnam," and me saying that it has nothing to do with the original point being made that you replied to.

If you want to talk about the Russian and Vietnamese military cooperation, we can do that in a different thread. But the argument you're pursuing there is also not well informed.

In the future please either try harder to develop an argument on point, start a new discussion on what you would actually like to talk about, or don't waste my time.
Click to expand...
I think we've already established in the past that it's in fact you who have something to apologise for. In case you've forgotten, it was you shoving your hypocritical face in front of me. And I'll repeat what I said then - you do not have any right to demand respect. You blew it.
If you can bring yourself to admit you were wrong, then perhaps I'll respond in kind. But I'm not expecting much, other than more of the above playing for the gallery type of pretentiousness.

I've only responded to you a couple of times, and I've seen some other easily refutable assertions of yours in other threads but not bothered to say anything.
You're not standing on stable ground, you know. I'm afraid you fired and missed... again.
 
_Wildcard_ said:
I think we've already established in the past that it's in fact you who have something to apologise for. In case you've forgotten, it was you shoving your hypocritical face in front of me. And I'll repeat what I said then - you do not have any right to demand respect. You blew it.
If you can bring yourself to admit you were wrong, then perhaps I'll respond in kind. But I'm not expecting much, other than more of the above playing for the gallery type of pretentiousness.

I've only responded to you a couple of times, and I've seen some other easily refutable assertions of yours in other threads but not bothered to say anything.
You're not standing on stable ground, you know. I'm afraid you fired and missed... again.
Click to expand...
I haven't been responding because I find all of our interactions deeply boring apart from the time you had a fullblown meltdown at the keyboard when I stated a simple fact of Australian history, which wasn't boring but it was psychotic including all the written tics like "heh." You have a major issue with being able to say you're wrong, it's very simple, I've done it many times. You can't even admit the possibility that you're wrong.

I don't ask for respect from anyone, in fact I prefer people challenging me on any assertion. I would prefer those challenges didn't come from you because they're inevitably misinformed drivel, originating from you desperately trying to play some "win the thread" game, and failing pitifully.
 
smokingjacket said:
I haven't been responding because I find all of our interactions deeply boring apart from the time you had a fullblown meltdown at the keyboard when I stated a simple fact of Australian history, which wasn't boring but it was psychotic including all the written tics like "heh." You have a major issue with being able to say you're wrong, it's very simple, I've done it many times. You can't even admit the possibility that you're wrong.

I don't ask for respect from anyone, in fact I prefer people challenging me on any assertion. I would prefer those challenges didn't come from you because they're inevitably misinformed drivel, originating from you desperately trying to play some "win the thread" game, and failing pitifully.
Click to expand...
I'd surmise you actually believe everything you just said.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

https://www.smh.com.au/business/com...enior-executive-arrested-20181206-p50kjq.html

Beijing: Controversial Chinese telco Huawei has been hit with a double blow after its chief financial officer – the company founder's daughter – was arrested on United States criminal charges and a major UK telco vowed to rip its equipment out of its telephone networks.

Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou, the daughter of founder Ren Zhengfei, was arrested in transit at Vancouver airport on Saturday, at the request of the United States, allegedly because the company had violated US sanctions against Iran.
 
smokingjacket said:
Russia has been the current Vietnamese governments military supplier of choice since 1950. Cam Ranh Bay is open to all foreign warships in the area patrolling the SCS, it will never be a Russian naval base again. All of Vietnam is within the range of China's DF-21 and associated classes of sea-area-denial missiles. They face the exact same challenges in the SCS as the US but with less technological sophistication or numbers to solve that problem. No current Vietnamese naval forces could hope to seriously threaten China in the SCS until a technology is developed to intercept hypersonic missiles, and that will most likely come from the US.
Click to expand...
Actualy America was North Vietnam first choice supplier but the Americans were paranoid and North had to look elsewhere.

And further to the debate Russia and china have been holding naval air and land military exercises in the region. Have also signed treatys to share technology and are joint partners in ridding Syria of isis and rebuilding the country
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Thegibbsgamble said:
Actualy America was North Vietnam first choice supplier but the Americans were paranoid and North had to look elsewhere.

And further to the debate Russia and china have been holding naval air and land military exercises in the region. Have also signed treatys to share technology and are joint partners in ridding Syria of isis and rebuilding the country
Click to expand...
You'll see it says "since 1950."
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom