Political Posts

[John Hjorth]

I highly appreciate the ongoing discussion in this topic, where variant perceptions etc. are discussed based a pratice of mutual respect among the participants. It's simply not possible not to become less ignorant by reading the stuff in this topic. Thank you to you all participating and contributing.

 

- - - o 0 o - - -

 

No matter how to look at it, in short, it's frigging ugly.

 

It's weekend - saturday , and at least here, the weather is beautiful - the summer has arrived! 

 

So something nice here for the mind - and the eye :

 

"Know that you know nothing, that is the highest wisdom.

 

Often what we know is actually temporary knowledge, waiting to be updated in the future by more complete knowledge.

 

When the facts change, change your minds.

 

Be a true beginner, have strong convictions, but loosely held.

 

Let your mind be like water, be formless, and shapeless. Take the shape of the vessel water it is in. Let it flow, let it go."

 

 

Eugine Ng,

Investor, author, angel. Ex-JPM and Citi

Edited June 10, 2023 by John Hjorth

[Spekulatius]

4 hours ago, Luca said:

https://slkanthan.substack.com/p/secrets-of-chinas-economic-growth

 

Nice Write up!

LOL, future for China is so bright, you have to wear shades. No mention of energy vampire Xi Jinping, rotten demographics , lousy stock market performance, failing Belt and road , debt, real estate malinvestment, aggressive behavior against Taiwan, US etc and you get separated from  your money when things get nasty etc.

[Luke]

25 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

LOL, future for China is so bright, you have to wear shades. No mention of energy vampire Xi Jinping, rotten demographics , lousy stock market performance, failing Belt and road , debt, real estate malinvestment, aggressive behavior against Taiwan, US etc and you get separated from  your money when things get nasty etc.

What exactly do you mean by energy vampire Xi? 

 

Birthrates looked rather fine 6 years ago, i am pretty sure if anybody will be able to fix this, its China:

 

 

Where exactly is the Belt and Road ,,failing,,? Can you provide some evidence that it is ,,failing,,?

 

Real estate crisis okay, that happens, have a look in the US in 2008. 

 

Agressive behavior against Taiwan? The US agreed that taiwan belongs to china, then Pelosi with an Airplane flying there...who is agressive here?

 

Getting seperated from your money when things get nasty? What do you mean? Evidence?

 

Good comment from VIC:

 

 

Consider also that chinese valuations are dirt cheap. Baba trading at book value, Tencent at 15x earnings excl investment portfolio. So many bargains out there...

 

https://www.scmp.com/business/banking-finance/article/3173959/chinas-securities-watchdog-renews-call-firms-buy-back

 

CSRC asking businesses for buybacks...

 

You can paint an equally horrible picture for the US, drug epidemic, financial bubbles, huge political conflicts, underinvested infrastructure. 

 

What remains is that China has an incredible track record for developing their country, in many ways its ahead to any country in the world and the train keeps driving...

 

Meanwhile some people think its a corrupt, failed state with no future. Ill take the contrarian bet here. 

 

 

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Luca

[zippy1]

12 minutes ago, Luca said:

 

 

Agressive behavior against Taiwan? The US agreed that taiwan belongs to china, then Pelosi with an Airplane flying there...who is agressive here?

 

While US "acknowledhes" that China made the cliam that Taiwan is part of China, US never agreed to this claim.
Pelosi is very welcome here in Taiwan.  Like many fellow Taiwanese, I also welcome our friend to visit us.  We can tell who is aggresive here.

Edited June 10, 2023 by zippy1

[Luke]

14 minutes ago, zippy1 said:

While US "acknowledhes" that China made the cliam that Taiwan is part of China, but US never agreed to this claim.
Pelosi is very welcome here in Taiwan.  Like many fellow Taiwanese, I welcome our friend to visit us. 

The agreement, to my information, was the one china policy. Taiwan is part of china and China and the US will stay in strategic ambiguity and neither of them will overthrow the status quo by force, very successful for the last decades wasnt it? Pelosis Visit is provocating because she is a high government official, talked with the taiwanese government etc. Understandable that china gets agressive, right?

 

On the other hand, i wish china would leave taiwan alone and taiwan could finally declare independence and i also understand that taiwanese people dont want to have anything to do with china, the US serves their interests more than china does. 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Luca

[zippy1]

50 minutes ago, Luca said:

The agreement, to my information, was the one china policy. Taiwan is part of china and China and the US will stay in strategic ambiguity and neither of them will overthrow the status quo by force, very successful for the last decades wasnt it? Pelosis Visit is provocating because she is a high government official, talked with the taiwanese government etc. Understandable that china gets agressive, right?

 

On the other hand, i wish china would leave taiwan alone and taiwan could finally declare independence and i also understand that taiwanese people dont want to have anything to do with china, the US serves their interests more than china does. 

US only acknowledged that China made such a claim; US just chose to not to agree or disagree with such a claim.  In other words, US does not hold a position on whether Taiwan is part of China.  US also does not encourage Taiwan to seek independence.

In terms of Pelosi' s visit, actually Pelosi is not even the first sitting US house speaker to visit Taiwan after US established diplomatic relationship with China in 1979.  In 1997, then-House speaker Gingrich visited Taiwan.  China had no reaction to Newt Gingrich's visit. 

China just chose to react violently this time just because it feels it is powerful enough to intimadate its neighbors.  Note that China even shoot mulltiple missiles into Japan's EEZ following Pelosi's visit.

I am not sure whether you realized China sent its navy ships into Japanese terretorial waters 11 times since this February.    

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/tokyo-protests-chinese-navy-ship-entering-japanese-waters/2917681 

In addition, South Korea just summoned Chinese Ambassador and accused the Chinese ambassador interfering with South Korean domestic politics.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/6/9/south-korea-summons-china-envoy-over-us-ties-remarks

Not counting Taiwan, the way China is handling its relationship with Japan, South Korea, Philipine and India certinaly does not give me confidence at all.... 

Edited June 10, 2023 by zippy1

[sleepydragon]

I own baba. And it’s obvious to me that Xi’s attitude towards the Taiwan issue is totally different from previous leaders. He likes to quote Chinese history and ancient words. And he probably knows the handful greatest rulers in Chinese history all had great military success.

 

yet the fact they are making all these noises and threats show war is not imminent. In the end, he doesn’t have money to do it. If he does it, the economy is going to crash and that will be the end of his or CCP’s ruling. So I don’t think there will be a war.

[Spekulatius]

Energy vampire and what is Xi is doing to the Chinese economy:

Or Druckenmiller view :

 

 

Edited June 10, 2023 by Spekulatius

[changegonnacome]

12 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

This  Kremlin document exactly confirms that he does not think that Ukraine is an indeed a separate county or what do you think “one people” means ore Putin

 

Indeed as I said - you can pull lines from that July paper totally consistent with the invading & swallowing Ukraine whole theory. But you've got two problems. The first is a math problem - 250,000 men is not sufficient to capture & occupy a city the size of Kyiv let alone Ukraine....when folks start positing the plan was to take Ukraine whole with 250,000 men I question the very fundamental basis of that idea. This theory collapses in relation to the standing armies size End of story and irrefutable. Ukraine's territory is 233,000 square miles, it is a vast country. The army of Feb 2022 was not assembled to invade, occupy & conquer Ukraine whole...if i was to guess its job was shock and awe tactic to Ukrainian electorate and attempting to topple Zelensky's government with a rapid drive to Kyiv. Installing a Russian puppet administration is what everybody says was the plan.....which maybe it was....I guess if I continue to play devil's advocate here.....Russia would say the aim first step was to remove the US's Zelensky puppet government. We in the West always fail to think that we too can be the owners of puppet governments. We are the good guys. We don't have or have never had puppet governments in foreign places furthering our strategic aims in any region?

 

The second problem with the July 2021 Putin document that nobody talks about & is never mentioned on your Wikipedia link for example because it introduces complexity into 'our' narrative are things in it like the concluding paragraph:

 

"Today, these words may be perceived by some people with hostility. They can be interpreted in many possible ways. Yet, many people will hear me. And I will say one thing – Russia has never been and will never be ”anti-Ukraine“. And what Ukraine will be – it is up to its citizens to decide."

 

You've also got in that document - lets call it the 'Cuba argument' below.......that Ukraine, on the doorstep of Russia, was slowly becoming a puppet regime for the USA......I wonder what a puppet regime would look like?......perhaps one when where the President of the United States (Trump) was so confident in the asymmetry of the bilateral relationship that the US President felt comfortable instructing a President of another sovereign nation to investigate his US political domestic rival? This is EXACTLY what a puppet regime relationship looks like? No?

 

"Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else's, and is not a tool in someone else's hands to fight against us."

 

I'm playing devils advocate here to a certain extent for sure. I totally agree with you @Viking whatever Putin's intent he completely miscalculated on just about every front possible...its been a disaster. It will go down as one of the great strategic blunders of any nations leader. However, I believe I'm right in one central point, Ukraine (& Belarus) are Putin's redlines in regards to Western 'encroachment' into Russia national security.....for through Ukraine & Belarus territories..as my WWII map shows......is how Russia on its Western flank would ever lose its sovereignty to an invading land army. Ukraine & Belarus's neutrality (neutered even) is Russia's equivalent of the Monroe doctrine. I can't put it more simply than that.

 

Ukraine is never joining NATO no matter what the politicians say......cause Russia's NATO redline is backed up by existentialist survival & paranoia underpinned by a credible threat to escalate beyond where the EU/US would ever be willing to take it.....you dont win in those types of escalation cycles....ask Khrushchev.........the stakes are higher for Russia.......the EU/US's desire to see Ukraine join the EU/NATO is based in liberal ideals. Then there is the question of Ukrainian agency & self-determination in all this I hear you say....which is true....but these ideas are routed in a kind of western liberalism idealism too......for example can I ask where was Cuba's right to its own agency, freedom & self-determination when it agreed with another sovereign nation (USSR) to a security arrangement to provide weapons/nukes to it.

 

Idealism is a currency spent in distant places.......realism, like when US security & sovereignty took precedence over Cuban security & sovereignty....is a currency spent at home.

[changegonnacome]

Enjoyed the back and forth @Spekulatius @Viking @John Hjorth we wont flog it anymore.....I'm playing devils advocate here a bit for sure......but whats the Munger phrase....."Tell me what your problem is and I’ll try and make it more difficult for you"

 

This problem in Ukraine/Russia is way more complex than the good guys (us) and the bullies/monster (them)......the commentary you see in the press completely divorces the difficult question I've raised of superseding sovereignty of powerful nations over less powerful ones ...the fact that we in the West have our own versions of Puppet regimes I know can anathema to hear......I know you guys get that......and let me sign off on this topic for a bit with my hope......that Ukraine crushes Russia in this counter-offensive & the Russians are begging for a peace deal by year end.

 

[Spekulatius]

More on Nordstream - it’s less and less likely that the Russians blew up the pipeline:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nord-stream-sabotage-probe-turns-to-clues-inside-poland-4ed20422?mod=hp_lead_pos2

[John Hjorth]

The Wikipedia article about it on the main Wikipedia page [.org domain] in English adds up facts and observations about the event nicely, I think.

 

2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage.

 

It's to me kind of a fascinating Wikipedia page, because what's indicated by each single observation simply cant add up to one truth. Highly fishy odor.

 

Also take the map in the article :

 

 

Thousands of kms of gas pipelines in Ukraine. How much have we heard about them in relation to this armed conflict?

[Spekulatius]

Russians shooting Russians. There is no retreat:

https://twitter.com/WotowiecMarek/status/1668232997672288257?s=20

 

[John Hjorth]

Ref. my talk upstream about Wind Power assets and O&G assets in the North Sea, at the Benelux shores and in the Nordic Waters I stumbled yesterday on an article about UK taking intiative to a new security pact bewteen the EU and UK related to to new security measures for all all these assets. It was an article from The Telegraph, but subsription protected. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find something similar about it, that is not subscription protected, so no link/source here from me.

Edited June 12, 2023 by John Hjorth

[Xerxes]

On 6/10/2023 at 6:41 PM, Spekulatius said:

More on Nordstream - it’s less and less likely that the Russians blew up the pipeline:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/nord-stream-sabotage-probe-turns-to-clues-inside-poland-4ed20422?mod=hp_lead_pos2

clues in Poland !! Wow 

 

I promise not to take a victory parade and point out that I called out Poland as a potential culprit within 48 hours after it happened. (Not Russia, nor US and definitely not Germans)

Edited June 12, 2023 by Xerxes

[Xerxes]

On 6/7/2023 at 4:29 PM, cubsfan said:

So well put. Sullivan is a real puppet.

cheers.
 

The golden age days of Kissinger and Nixon running a realpolitik foreign policy and skipping the bureaucrats in the US State Department  is long gone. 

 

incidentally, Kissinger turned 100 in late May and did a 8 hours interview withThe Economist. I read the article but not the interview. 
 

There must be a strong correlation between longevity and keeping one mind’ occupied. 

[Castanza]

33 minutes ago, Xerxes said:

clues in Poland !! Wow 

 

I promise not to take a victory parade and point out that I called out Poland as a potential culprit within 48 hours after it happened. (Not Russia, nor US and definitely not Germans)

 Stil boggles my mind this was ever debated US and Poland were the obvious two answers. You’ve got CIA, SEALs or GROM (worked with US extensively during GWOT); two of which specialize and have done this exact thing in the past. 
 

Pres. Biden: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

 

Reporter: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"

 

Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."

 

Source: ABC News https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662

[John Hjorth]

Thank you for a great one here, @Castanza!

[Xerxes]

34 minutes ago, Castanza said:

 Stil boggles my mind this was ever debated US and Poland were the obvious two answers. You’ve got CIA, SEALs or GROM (worked with US extensively during GWOT); two of which specialize and have done this exact thing in the past. 
 

Pres. Biden: "If Russia invades...then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it."

 

Reporter: "But how will you do that, exactly, since...the project is in Germany's control?"

 

Biden: "I promise you, we will be able to do that."

 

Source: ABC News https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1490792461979078662

i should come clean and say that the thought that the Romulans (with their cloaking technology) where behind this did cross my mind. 
 

The Nord Stream saga has been like a convoluted Star Trek spycraft episode, where the authors let their pens run wild 

[Gregmal]

This whole war has been a great and amusing exercise in highlighting the bias of Western reporting. US GOOD, THEM BAD! How many sources and people and outlets said Russia was responsible for the pipeline? Or the Kremlin drone attack? Or the totally fabricated “ghost of Kiev”…Anything to keep billing the US taxpayer for this political game being played.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Gregmal

[Xerxes]

On 6/9/2023 at 7:04 PM, Viking said:

 

Clearly i am an idiot. ‘Ounce of prevention’? Seriously? What have they prevented? And check out the ‘tonne of cure’ below… that is a cure? Seriously? 

 

So Russia decided to invade a sovereign country because of the risk of nukes getting placed there. As a result of their actions, they also are now directly responsible for:

1.) forcing Finland to join Nato. Hello nukes very close. FYI, Finland is about the same distance from Moscow as Ukraine (in rocket terms).

2.) forcing Sweden to join Nato. The Baltic Sea now belongs to Nato.
3.) revitalizing Nato, which was crumbling and close to becoming obsolete before the invasion.
4.) forcing all countries in Europe to aggressively re-arm, including big ones like Germany. So in the coming years Russia is going to be surrounded by hostile and armed to the teeth neighbours. (Yes, people in Europe get hostile when they see the atrocities of what Russia is doing to Ukraine today).

5.) killing to date 20,000 of its own citizens (Russians!) with 100,000 casualties (Russians!)

6.) materially impairing the living standard of most Russians, likely for a generation

7.) materially impairing the future prospects of most Russian children

8.) forcing hundreds of thousands of young Russian men to flee the country to avoid fighting in the war

9.) economically speaking, has effectively become China’s concubine

 

Man looks to me like Russia just nailed it with this invasion. My list above is just scratching the surface of what they have ‘achieved’. 

 

 

United Kingdom and France largely lost their global empires and their military prowess and became economic concubines to the US (unwillingly) but perhaps the second war was something worth fighting for (and dying for; as long as it is in the past and I am not doing the dying part).
 

Britain had a choice to share the continent with Germany and Hitler had deep historical respect for Britain’ world dominion. At least before they refuse to do his bidding. But Britain chose not to. While Nazi do make great cast of villains in movies, there was nothing romantic about UK standing up to it in the calculus of power being contemplated in London. Simple fact is Britain always played the weaker actor in continental Europe against emerging powers in the continent and watched the firework across the English Channel. 
 

How is that for a scorecard !!  Losing an empire to keep the geopolitical calculus in its favour and maintaining Anglo-Saxon hegemony. They have even tried to claw back their “empire” and influence in the 1950s. 
 

Wars are very seldom good for both sides. only winners are merchants of death and historians (hungry for fresh content). 
 

Fast forward to today :

 

Both Russia and Ukraine are both losers on this one. I can romanticize the Ukrainian side and say  “Ukraine gained its identity in the fires of Feb 2022”. But who am I to make that comment. Some Canadian living in a land, protected by two large body of waters and the Americans (a close ally) to the south with the House of Stark to the North. 
 

Ukrainians don’t need my validation of them “forging their identity in the fires of Feb 2022”. They have been around for centuries in one form or another. 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Xerxes

[cubsfan]

20 hours ago, Gregmal said:

This whole war has been a great and amusing exercise in highlighting the bias of Western reporting. US GOOD, THEM BAD! How many sources and people and outlets said Russia was responsible for the pipeline? Or the Kremlin drone attack? Or the totally fabricated “ghost of Kiev”…Anything to keep billing the US taxpayer for this political game being played.

 

Yeah, I got a problem with lot of this too. Do you back a tyrant or a corrupt Ukraine gov?  

Seems the notion that Ukraine was behind the Nordstream has some validity and it was always difficult to understand why Russia would take out their own pipeline when they could just shut it off.

 

Lots of smoke and mirrors playing out.  Lesser of two evils I guess...hard to be more evil than Putin.

[Gregmal]

11 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

Yeah, I got a problem with lot of this too. Do you back a tyrant or a corrupt Ukraine gov?  

Seems the notion that Ukraine was behind the Nordstream has some validity and it was always difficult to understand why Russia would take out their own pipeline when they could just shut it off.

 

Lots of smoke and mirrors playing out.  Lesser of two evils I guess...hard to be more evil than Putin.

Yea we all know the real reason for the Ukraine support rests with Burisma and is more about creating sideshows and distractions. Personally, this isn’t our problem stop wasting our taxpayer funds fanning the flames. Ukraine is a corrupt dump and Russia is Russia. What’s the end game? Another Iran/Iraq situation lol? That worked wonders despite us doing everything we wanted there for two decades. US needs to leave everyone else alone. 

[changegonnacome]

3 hours ago, Xerxes said:

Simple fact is Britain always played the weaker actor in continental Europe against emerging powers in the continent and watched the firework across the English Channel. 

Yep Britain, was a highly unusual global superpower in 1800 & early 1900’s when it dominated the globe …..in that it chose in some respects not to first completely dominate & consolidate power in its local region (Europe) first before playing further afield in Asia, Africa & the Americas. This is not the global hegemon playbook….America is an example of the standard playbook….dominating and putting down anything approaching a peer competitor in North America before embarking on expansionary influence adventures in different regions (Europe first, then Asia).

 

China of course at the start of its power journey first must dominate & control Asia….which is what makes Taiwan a kind of inevitability over time.  Imagine a USA that never expelled the French from the South - it’s unthinkable that a rising global power wouldn’t be a regional hegemon first and it’s simply unthinkable that China could be regional hegemon without complete and utter control of an island that sits 100 miles of its coast. 

 

I digress - back to Britain…..Its navy, ocean power and island geography made it regionally secure at a high level even though its region contained a number of peer competitors. Its security shield was both the ocean/navy….but also that those peer competitors on the continent were constantly warring with each other anyway and constantly destroying one anothers military capability. They rarely through their various cycles of destruction did France or Germany ever rise to a level that truly threatened Britain's security in this period. However In World War Two what emerged in Germany was the potential for a single regional hegemon in Europe, that through its consolidation of European nations resources & war machines had aspirations to cross the channel and conquer Great Britain. In short Britain had no choice but to enter WWII & likewise again in WWI….this type of self-interest is propagandized & alchemized by nations into acts of bravery and valor but every historical account of the people in the room that declare war on another nation do so from a place of deep deep self interest and are recorded doing so by historians when they check the primary records.….what comes AFTER these acts of deep self-interest that result in wars almost immediately are the JUSTIFICATIONS for war aimed at gaining public and moral support......you know the ones, you've heard them before tales of liberation & spreading freedom and democracy. There are small notable exceptions to what I just said ("just wars") but there are no big exceptions....…it’s realism, pragmatism and dogged self-interest that drive the big moves in major international conflicts. The British hate the French yet ended up fighting two world wars beside them. Not because the British love French Onion soup but because like all nations they love themselves. End of story.

 

I see Ukraine and Americas involvement there in the region through this prism.

Edited June 13, 2023 by changegonnacome

[Xerxes]

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

Yep Britain, was a highly unusual global superpower in 1800 & early 1900’s when it dominated the globe …..in that it chose in some respects not to first completely dominate & consolidate power in its local region (Europe) first before playing further afield in Asia, Africa & the Americas. This is not the global hegemon playbook….America is an example of the standard playbook….dominating and putting down anything approaching a peer competitor in North America before embarking on expansionary influence adventures in different regions (Europe first, then Asia).

 

China of course at the start of its power journey first must dominate & control Asia….which is what makes Taiwan a kind of inevitability over time.  Imagine a USA that never expelled the French from the South - it’s unthinkable that a rising global power wouldn’t be a regional hegemon first and it’s simply unthinkable that China could be regional hegemon without complete and utter control of an island that sits 100 miles of its coast. 

 

I digress - back to Britain…..Its navy, ocean power and island geography made it regionally secure at a high level even though its region contained a number of peer competitors. Its security shield was both the ocean/navy….but also that those peer competitors on the continent were constantly warring with each other anyway and constantly destroying one anothers military capability. They rarely through their various cycles of destruction did France or Germany ever rise to a level that truly threatened Britain's security in this period. However In World War Two what emerged in Germany was the potential for a single regional hegemon in Europe, that through its consolidation of European nations resources & war machines had aspirations to cross the channel and conquer Great Britain. In short Britain had no choice but to enter WWII & likewise again in WWI….this type of self-interest is propagandized & alchemized by nations into acts of bravery and valor but every historical account of the people in the room that declare war on another nation do so from a place of deep deep self interest and are recorded doing so by historians when they check the primary records.….what comes AFTER these acts of deep self-interest that result in wars almost immediately are the JUSTIFICATIONS for war aimed at gaining public and moral support......you know the ones, you've heard them before tales of liberation & spreading freedom and democracy. There are small notable exceptions to what I just said ("just wars") but there are no big exceptions....…it’s realism, pragmatism and dogged self-interest that drive the big moves in major international conflicts. The British hate the French yet ended up fighting two world wars beside them. Not because the British love French Onion soup but because like all nations they love themselves. End of story.

 

I see Ukraine and Americas involvement there in the region through this prism.

totally agree (or mostly).
 

in my view, Berlin was going to be the Rome to Britain’s Carthage “old power”. Unlike the three Punic Wars that ended with destruction of “old power”, the three German Wars (Franco-Prussian, WW1 and WW2) had the outcome of Carthage keeping status quo and Berlin (Rome-that-was-not) being burned into ground. 

 

Germany, its resources and massive industrial capacity was just too big of a threat for the Old Europe and its status quo. 

these days however we are in the age of Netflixization of geopolitics. Good guys vs bad guys.