I mean, he's right in the most horrible way. So much terrible stuff perpetuated by corrupt governments is pouring on fuel for a major downturn in public trust in their leaders. There's soon going to be a turning point between the tearing down of the establishment by the working class or the increase in oppresion and erosion of civil rights by governments that need complacency or
ignorance to keep their scams running.
He's not talking to us, he's advertising totalitarianism to your countries' politicians.
It's absurd that China, one of the most repressive places, one that restricts freedom of speech and human rights, is in position to talk about leading globalization (if that's what he means by global governance) - it should be the USA or EU leading such a move, but not them. Though, when US is retreating into isolationism and EU is having problems of it's own, i'm not surprised that China is actually capable of doing so...
It's not like they're doing this because they're bastions of peace and Goodwill. They're doing this because they want the control. It's actively malevolent.
I perfectly understand this - which is why i'm even more disappointed that US and EU aren't being in spot of China right now; they're actually the prime nations that should lead the globalization tide
Because it's motivated entirely different and functionally different. China isn't looking for a globalized world, they're looking for a subservient one. Where other nations are at best vassal states.
this authoritarian twat and all his cronies can fuck right off.
China has problems too, they're just an authoritarian state, so they have much more control over their problems than a free state does. And by that I mean they can enact orwellian surveillance measures, deploy the troops against troublesome minorities, and cover it all up or even have the public approve.
This is why I've been saying for a long time that there needs to be a proper European government. The US has proven pretty definitively that it is not reliable and should it fall from grace, the two remaining options are completely opposed to the ideals of the western world. There needs to be someone that can actually ward off Russia and China if (or really, when considering the way things are going) the US is no longer able to.
Best post in the thread.
And Putin says, "I didn't fuck up America just for the Chinese to be the world leader"
And it turns out the final war isn’t between the US and Russia or China, but Russia vs. China...
Well, it was obvious from a while ago that China wanted to be the new USA on all the aspects. They only need a new world war so they can go in and pose as "the saviours" and lead the rebuilding process, just like it happened during WW2.
If we don't get the EU to be on a better state within 5-10 years you can be sure none will oppose them.
They already have something like a 6 trillion dollar financial plan to invest in ports and infrastructure of majority of Asia and Africa, all of which will send goods to China. They don't need a war to rebuild the world, they're doing it already.
China's New Colonialism is based on Patronage instead of invading and upending sovereign states overtly.
In the ideal timeline where things got better, not worse, after Clinton left office, America would be guiding a liberal-democracy-focused investment push into Africa and the less-developed segments of Asia to help uplift developing nations and build out modern infrastructure where it is lacking. That's still happening, but it's China doing it, and in the long run that's not good for anyone but China.
How the World Fell Under Darkness.
Nah, we can't even keep our own infrastructure up to snuff. China gets to do this because they've got the benefit of being an authoritarian one-party government. What the Chinese government wants, they can easily achieve without any resistance from the population.
Well, I did say "in the timeline where things got better after Clinton left office". Instead of infrastructure being neglected completely in the intervening 17 years, in that timeline things might've been addressed in a reasonably timely manner.
It's pretty obvious that the US is in no position, nor interested, to devote their main focus on investing infrastructure into Africa.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
