Thunberg…admitted during the court proceedings that she had disobeyed the police order but pleaded not guilty and said that she was acting out of necessity.
Meloni leads the only major Western country to have joined China’s BRI scheme, which envisions rebuilding the old Silk Road to connect China with Asia, Europe and beyond with large infrastructure spending.
This sounds amazing to me. China has done some great strides building up their infrastructure, it’s truly astonishing.
It’s all a way for the CCP to gain power over other countries. “Oh, you’re using OUR infrastructure, you need to do X thing that’s bad for you or we will turn it off/fuck you over with it”.
There’s no such thing as a perfect government, and there’s certainly things the CCP does that I’m not a fan of. That said, China’s overall rising standard of living, and incredible infrastructure that’s all popped up in the past couple of decades has me really impressed. Attempting an international infrastructure project like this is super interesting, to me at least.
Too bad the tankies here refuse to hear a single bad word about the CCP, with some even making this sound like ‘Trumptard fear-mongering’.
In reality, the BRI has shaped up to be little more than debt-trap diplomacy, powered by bribes to influential politicians (borderline autocrats) who’re willing to sell their countries for a dime.
I actually believe that those countries decided to take Chinese loans after becoming weary of IMF ones. The latter come with a lot of strings attached that force said countr8toalign with wester ideals and economic doctrines such as privatization of industries and services as well as social reforms. It is actually not too far off from how colonisers would push the colonies to become ‘civilized’. The west as always thinks it knows better and must push the ‘uneducated’ countries in the right direction. The Chinese offered an alternative where the loan recipients are allowed to develop the way they see fits them best. They are not looking to mold new countries in their image, just create economically strong trading partners that may see them more positively that they see the west. In the future that may allow them to contrast the western countries in geopolitical strength. TL;DR: China is actually hoping that these countries develop into strong economies that are aligned with China rather than with the USA.
I follow African local politics rather closely and have many friends on the continent, and I’ve yet to see any Africans say that Chinese loans carry such requirements. However, nearly every African country has commented on the exploitative nature of WorldBank and IMF loans, which often come with policy requirements, such as privatization of public infrastructure and restriction on wages.
I did see an airport that was supposedly taken over in Uganda by China, but there’s been no corroborating evidence, despite almost two years having passed since the story was broken, and in fact, the president of Uganda came out and said that at the time the story broke, Uganda hadn’t even left the grace period on their loan, much less defaulted on it.
I don’t think the IMF or anybody should be screwing over borrowers but at least it’s in the open where you and I, the concerned public, can do something.
Why would Africans spell out that requirement? Because they’re the ones who are taking the loans, and so have the best understanding of the terms of said loans. I didn’t ask why China isn’t talking about this, I said that I’ve yet to see any African people or politicians, despite being heavily invested in African politics, and having many friends on the continent, say anything negative about the Chinese loans. Can you show me some Africans taking about this, or do you only have US media and state dept links?
Also, what do you mean the concerned public can do something about the IMF? What effective methods do you know of to prevent IMF exploitative loans that can be done by the regular public?
The Western critique of the BRI is that it’s debt trap diplomacy, i.e. China loans money for development and hopes the beneficiaries can’t repay so they can “own” them in a diplomatic sense, or downright repo some of their critical assets.
That’s the criticism that Trump has levied against the BRI, but there are serious objections to this portrayal. Here’s one from a reputable Western source:
Thanks for this link! I read the bullet points ('cuz it’s really late right now) but I’m keen on watching the video tomorrow!
It’s difficult for me to take anything Trump, and by extension, the U.S. says too seriously. They love to fearmonger about foreign influences and propaganda, but it’s not like they don’t do the very same they accuse others of.
Specifically, the GOP fearmongers most. The Dems are much more internationally & diplomatically inclined when compared to their political opponents.
Tinfoil Hat Time: I think the separatism in the US is being stoked by outside forces. If you read a summary of The Foundations of Geopolitics it sounds very familiar to what’s happening. I also think Social Media needs to go, or rather engagement driven algorithms, because they create informational bubbles that polarize society.
Thank you. It is absolutely being stoked by outside forces, very often on social media.
Random interns are using ChatGPT to excel in their jobs, no doubt the CCP and Kremlin have their own LLMs on social media dividing democratic countries.
One of the big downsides of free, anonymous speech.
Does it matter if it’s a scandal or not when there are no repercussions? Are there not still concentration camps along the southern border? A plan that openly boasted about sexually assaulting people was elected president, and is still not in prison.
China has done some heinous things, but let’s not pretend that the US hasn’t. Even for historical events that are being taught (like the trail of tears) the context is removed. Some things, like the Tulsa massacre aren’t mentioned at all. It’s said that slavery ended with the civil war, yet the last slave was freed in 1942 because the government at the time knew that their treatment of black people would be used as a point of entry for anti-American propaganda.
They have repeatedly intervened in foreign governments and even executed coups to overthrow governments. Like the 1953 coup to overthrow the democratically elected prime minister of Iran because he wanted to nationalise their oil industry.
As for social issues, women aren’t guaranteed access to abortion since the overthrowing of Roe v Wade the other year. Trans people don’t have access to life saving healthcare in most states. Prisoners are essentially stripped of human rights and forced into peonage, most prisoners also strangely being minorities/people of colour.
The United States aren’t good guys. If I have to tolerate their antics, which by and large happen to set the tone for politics here in Europe, then I can tolerate China as well.
I wonder why then, if it’s a debt trap, China has such a better record of forgiving foreign loans than other countries and institutions? The IMF requires economic control for their loans, including such stipulations as the privatization of public infrastructure, dismantling of labor laws, and lowering of minimum wages in their loans on a regular basis. I’ve not heard of any such requirements from Chinese loans, and in fact billions of dollars of loans were forgiven during the Covid-19 crisis. Why is there no criticism of the IMF loan regime and its fundamentally exploitative loans? The whole criticism reeks of orientalist hysteria to me.
The deal was signed in 2019 under the administration of Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, drawing criticism from Washington and Brussels, and Italy is highly unlikely to renew it when it expires early next year.
It has produced little benefit for Italy over the past four years, with exports to China totalling 16.4 billion euros ($18.1 billion) last year from 13 billion euros in 2019.
That sounds amazing to me. China has done jack shit except practice wolf imperialism.
I’m not up to snuff on NATO regulations. As I understand it, if a NATO nation gets attacked, the rest of them are obliged to defend, correct? What happens if that nation is “the aggressor”. Like in this situation if Poland were to do a first strike against Belarus or Russia and they respond attacking Poland, is the rest of NATO obliged to help defend Poland?
No, NATO doesn’t interfere if a member starts a war. It’s a defensive treaty. That said, Poland alone wouldn’t be able to do much, and democracies rarely openly declare war.
However what if a NATO country starts a war with Belarus, and then Russia attacks the NATO country?
The NATO country would never have initiated a war with Russia, they would have initiated it with Belarus.
Does a NATO country automatically become vulnerable if they have any wars currently ongoing? Because that would mean Russia could have attacked America during the war in Afghanistan and NATO would not have been able to get involved.
The way it works is that the attacked country invokes article 5. If the country does it then other members are obligated to help. If they don't, they are undermining NATO.
I think putin sending Wagner to Belarus is indeed thinking to force Belarus to attack Poland or a Baltic states and see what happens. Of course that would be simple, it would be Belarus vs NATO, and would end up quickly.
So he is tipping the scale and saying that attacking Belarus will be also attacking Russia, hoping that it will be ignored like two Russian missiles hitting Poland. If it won't be ignored, then he is just sacrificing Belarus.
I had a deployment with Polish soldiers. They are a modern and extremely capable defensive force. It would likely turn into the same thing we’re seeing in Ukraine (smaller force that is well trained and better supplied vs sending a lot of bodies and old tech). I don’t think we’ll ever see a Polish led force invading Belarus or Russia without a massive NATO backing and a lot of foreign units already on the way to support them. Defensively, they will fuck you up. Offensively, they don’t have the man power to go deep into enemy territory.
The Polish have historical grudges with Russia and are chomping at the bit to hurt some Russians. It is probably NATO that is holding them back from sending units to Ukraine
As long as an attack happens on NATO territory, it’s considered an act of war. Even if the NATO country is the aggressor. Ideally the aggressing country would be suspended before they could invoke article 5.
Imagine how dangerous it would be if NATO was, instead of a defensive pact, a transnational nuclear military helmed by the world’s foremost genocidal empire that marches across Europe via propaganda and coup d’etats towards it’s ultimate goal of encircling Russia and China. What a cluster fuck that would be? In that reality, if a member state launched a war of aggression NATO would probably support it and continue escalation.
Luckily, we know NATO is a defensive force because it didn’t launch multiple wars of aggression, drop depleted uranium on civilians, and is democratically accountable.
BTW: since lemmy (and obviously lemmygrad) was created by communists. Can you explain to me what's so communist about Russia that you and others are so fiercely defending? How are they different from that "imperialistic pig" that is the US? Is it because Russia is fascist now?
Looks to me like you never cared about communist ideology, and it was always about supporting Muscovies and totalitarism.
Nobody said Russia is communist, nor is anybody defending Russia here. People are just explaining to you that the reality is more complex than the propaganda narrative you’ve guzzled makes it out to be. The only fascists here are the ones who think that people of Ukraine should be used in a proxy war against Russia by the west. So, maybe stop projecting there.
Said the guy with a thumbnail with big CCCP on his forehead.
Standard bullshit pretending that you care about people, dismissing that Ukrainians are fighting for their right to exist. After the war crimes committed, after Bucha and many other places, after Russia admitted to kidnapping nearly a million of Ukrainian children (textbook definition of genocide), after ICC charges for war crimes.
But ok, please outline exactly what should be the peace agreement, who gets what (don't skip any details).
And second, please tell me how Russia, will honor that agreement, when it broke every single one going back to 90s, including Budapest Memorandum where it signed that it will respect Ukraine's borders. The one that it broke in 2003, 2014, 2018 and 2022 (when it decided to go after the rest of Ukraine).
The fact that you made a personal attack followed by a bunch of drivel there that has nothing to do with anything I said is really in character fro you.
What personal attack? Are you saying your thumbnail is offensive to you?
You don't answer these questions, because you don't have a good answer that doesn't show that you are supporting the genocide being committed by Russia.
My thumbnail isn’t offensive to me, but a reddit troll talking about it in pejorative fashion is. And your “questions” have nothing to do with anything I said here. However, last I checked it was Ukraine committing ethnic cleansing in Donbas as CNN reported back in 2014. Also, Russia should be held to the same standard western “democracies” are held to. The ones that invaded Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. In fact, US currently occupies a greater percentage of Syria than Russia is occupying of Ukraine while stealing food and oil from the people of Syria. Western war on terror has massacred over 6 million people, and nobody holds a candle to US when it comes to killing civilians. In fact, UK is currently torturing a journalist who exposed US war crimes in Iraq.
But I guess Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is different from all that because people in Ukraine have blond hair and blue eyes, so a bunch western racists started caring about wars all of a sudden. You have no moral high ground when your own country commits far worse atrocities than what Russia is doing.
I’m not changing any topics. I’m pointing out the how utterly morally bankrupt your position is. The reality of the situation is that it was possible to avoid the war, and all Ukraine had to do to achieve that was to stay neutral. Ukraine joining NATO was a red line for Russia, and this is something that was well known both in Ukraine and in the west. Countless western experts have been warning about this for many decades. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.___ https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/832e713d-8963-4ecc-ae1f-8b366830bbd4.png
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"___ https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/706556d4-ae53-4140-9cb2-bb2cfefd9c52.png
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
The reality is that it’s Ukraine that refused to implement Minsk while attacking civilian population in Donbas as CNN reported at the time. Now, western and Ukrainian leaders have actually admitted on record that they never planned to implement Minsk and it was a play for time.
You must have something in mind, or are you saying that you have no idea what you’re talking about?
I’m saying that it’s either you who has no idea what you’re talking about or you’re just an outright liar. Either way it’s a pretty bad look. War happened because of people like you, and now hundreds of thousands of people have died, millions have had their lives ruined, and Ukraine will lose a huge chunk of its territory in the best case scenario. All of this happened because the west and Ukraine refused to negotiate.
@takeda@yogthos I understand where you're coming from Takeda. But don't expect rationality from Yogi. He says Ukraine is being "used in a proxy war". That's your first hint that he's a propagandist. Anyone who says the US is helping Ukraine to hurt Russia without mentioning that the ONLY reason the US needs to do so is because Russia has needlessly and baselessly attacked Ukraine, is not trying to speak the truth. Unless Yogi here wants to admit Russia's attack was the cause? Yogi?
Believing what you wrote takes a brain as smooth as a bowling ball. RAND literally put out a whole study called extending Russia where it outlines a proxy war in Ukraine. US ambassador to Finland openly called it a proxy war, Lindsey Graham said it’s the best money US ever spent on killing Russians. Meanwhile, imagine claiming with a straight face that US is helping Ukraine, what an utter monster one has to be to call this help. You are a deplorable piece of human garbage.
@yogthos You missed the point with the grace of a dancing elephant as usual. I didn't say it wasn't a proxy war. I said that acting like Russia isn't reason the war exists at all why you're a propagandist. Can you admit that Russia started this war and is solely responsible for the bullets and bombs that are flying or no? How much of a leash does Daddy Putin keep on you?
I never argued that Russia didn’t start this war, what I’m arguing against is the simplistic claim that Russia is solely responsible for creating the conditions for the war. The fact that you can’t comprehend that shows utter lack of capacity for critical thought on your part. The funny part is that plenty of people in the west such as Sachs, Mearshaemer, and Chomsky have all explained in detail the role the west played. RAND literally published a study on this. Yet, here we have burger empire propagandists such as your self prancing around claiming Russia is solely responsible for the war. You are a truly deplorable individual.
That doesn’t dispute my comment though? If Poland were to attack Belarus and Belarus retaliated with an attack on Polish soil, they could absolutely invoke article 5.
This isn't a new policy. They're just reiterating the official US stance. Nothing has changed. This isn't a betrayal or really anything newsworthy, it's just your standard geopolitical cya.
Not to defend the gigacorp who either didn’t look for or didn’t care to pay for tech that someone already created and they ended up using in a product, parralel development happens and it could be an oversite, but non-practicing entities are leeches of the highest order.
Will have to read in on the nature of the case more to see what was used and who got paid here, but groups that just sit around on a bunch of shakey over-broad patents with no intent to actualy implement them in any meaningful way need to have them stripped. All they do is hold up developments in the hope of getting a payout with no benefit to society.
For a bit more technical readout on the nature of the case, this does sound pretty fishy as a claim. The party getting damages has no product and the patents are all kind of hand-wavey ‘make one device tell a server to give a command to another device’ in nature. Of course the case was handled in TX too which has a penchant for being patent maximalists.
The US may not back them, but it certainly doesn’t condemn them either. This is the tightrope that has been walked between the nuclear-armed parties of interest since the beginning of the conflict.
And they are still expecting more. They have set aside 4 billion for lawsuits against Credit Suisse. When are they going to close the toxic short positions from Archegos?
reuters.com
Active