|
Should be 27-40% of omicron cases are asymptomatic but those numbers above are at 94% cases asymptomatic. Between that and the 0 covid deaths from feb21-22 we got another unbelievable chinese miracle!
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 08:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
Despera posted:Should be 27-40% of omicron cases are asymptomatic but those numbers above are at 94% cases asymptomatic. Between that and the 0 covid deaths from feb21-22 we got another unbelievable chinese miracle! Is 27-40% during a regular universal testing regimen?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 14:50
|
|
|
Daduzi posted:Is 27-40% during a regular universal testing regimen? I think the only parts of America that did surveillance testing were a few universities and they all stopped before Omicron
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 15:22
|
|
|
Is the idea here that the Chinese government is lying about the level of COVID19, it is actually much worse than they are letting on, and therefore they should lower restrictions? Shouldn't they be even more locked down if the real numbers reflect higher counts of infections and deaths?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 16:49
|
|
|
hekaton posted:Is the idea here that the Chinese government is lying about the level of COVID19, it is actually much worse than they are letting on, and therefore they should lower restrictions? the issue with what's going on is that we cannot confuse strictness of a disease containment policy with effectiveness, and where china has taken zero covid this year is showcasing that issue in abundance. you have to refine policy and adapt it to the realities of what you can do. the issue of authoritarian opacity and the resulting fully reasonable inability to trust if the numbers they are providing are real adds additional levels of complication to the mix, because epidemiological concern management thoroughly requires transparency and medical oversight to judge both efficacy and ethicality. without verifiably transparent data, there are no claims about the current covid zero protocols that you can work with.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
Yes at the end of the day doomer bunkers/culling grandma argument doesnt matter because the only statistics that will be released are ones that the government want released.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 20:50
|
|
|
Heres an article on how china met its GDP growth targets despite the lockdowns and an obvious downturn in critical economic sectors. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-27/china-economy-data-paints-different-tale-than-party-line Apparently draconian lockdowns dont hurt the economy when your economic measures are pure fiction
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
I want to be friends with the lucky son of a bitch that owns the factory making all of these hundreds of millions of daily COVID tests.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 21:41
|
|
|
Kavros posted:the issue with what's going on is that we cannot confuse strictness of a disease containment policy with effectiveness, and where china has taken zero covid this year is showcasing that issue in abundance. you have to refine policy and adapt it to the realities of what you can do. But strictness and effectiveness correlate extremely well, right? A voluntary personal quarantine vs mandatory personal quarantine vs state-organized mandatory quarantine have increasing efficacies that track with increasing strictness. Same with optional vaccination vs mandatory vaccination. Controlling a disease requires information on the state of people in the affected zone, whether they are susceptible, infected, or resistant to the disease, and then tracking and controlling the relationships between individuals to reduce spread. Controlling a relationship would run the gamut from asking people to wear masks to welding infected people in their apartments. The degree to which you can obtain that information and control those interactions governs your ability to regulate the spread of disease. Obviously strictness will increase efficacy. The counterargument generally is that people will avoid interfacing at all with the health machinery if they view it as too onerous, and you'd hit diminishing returns or even losses to your disease control if you hit some threshold. For example, there is a fraction of people who would report getting sick but they don't because they do not want to be quarantined, and so the state's knowledge of their illness is lost, and they spread it further than they would have under a freer system. But I think if a point of maximum disease control exists for SARS-CoV-2, its position on the strictness axis is vastly closer to China's model than anything in the west, just based off of how the numbers have looked so far in the pandemic. Even if China's numbers were off by multiple orders of magnitude this would still be true, and their data is almost certainly inaccurate to some degree but it cannot be off by a factor of ten thousand.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 22:32
|
|
|
TheBuilder posted:I want to be friends with the lucky son of a bitch that owns the factory making all of these hundreds of millions of daily COVID tests. His friends are all major party officials, if you know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
Taiwan just announced it was dropping its zero covid policy.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 00:28
|
|
|
Despera posted:One of the greatest joys of china watching is the clownish attempts at foriegn policy. You mean India doesnt want to give china land in a border dispute just so it can ally against a country it doesnt have a border dispute? Its like chinese diplomats believe friendship with thier country is the highest achievement ant human could accomplish and such is worth any cost. I don't think their FP is clownish or that they (the CCP) think 'friendship' with China is an inherent good and thus naively expect its neighbors to bend to its whims. The article points out the tension between China's twin FP goals - namely that of assuming (what it feels is) its rightful place as the pre-eminent Great Power in East Asia and one of the main pillars of the international order, along with its second major goal, which is that of deterrence and the eviction of US influence in the Asia Pacific region. On the surface level, these two goals are complementary; in order for China to take its place as the Great Power of East Asia, it must destroy the grip of the United States in the region and turn US allies into Chinese allies (periphery states). Indeed the Pacific order is a western one, built on western treaties and western interpretation of norms so whenever conflicts arise whether they be economic or territorial, all eyes turn to Washington - and not necessarily Beijing although all players understand that Chinese interests must also be taken into account. But Beijing is rarely the primary arbiter in these affairs. China desperately wants that narrative to change so that all eyes turn to Beijing in the future. However, it is clear that the US has absolutely no interest in participating in China's vision of the future in the near term. While the Chinese have long diagnosed the US to be in long-term decline going back more than 10 years, American policymakers obviously do not see it the same way. Indeed, China was identified as the next great competitor during the same time span that the Chinese grew ever more confident that the US was merely a corpse rotting from the inside. While Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Ukraine have perpetually distracted US policymakers from putting the Pacific front and centre, the US military has never lost focus on who the real opponent would be in the next great contest dubbing Russia as only an 'acute' threat while China remains the 'pacing threat' to the international system. https://executivegov.com/2022/03/kathleen-hicks-fy-2023-budget-request-aligns-with-national-defense-strategy/ Historically throughout human civilization, periphery states only switch sides peacefully when the imperial centre falters internally and a new centre of power takes its place. See for example the Russian periphery being sliced off a piece at a time during the past 20 years or the rise of the United States in the late 19th and first half of the 20th century as the Spanish and UK gradually lost both the means and the will to exert its influence over its colonial possessions with WW2 cementing the Washington and Moscow as the new centres of power. If a rising power does not have a vaccum to occupy then they must expand their influence through conquest or intimidation (also the US). Hence the problem for China. The US is not in decline and is indeed redoubling its effort in the Pacific. Even if it is in long term decline, it is certainly not at the pace at which China wants or predicted and these past two administrations, despite being from opposite ends of the political spectrum have made it crystal clear that they don't intend to withdraw from the Pacific. The harder China tries to use force or intimidation to push out the US, the more it alarms the countries both within the US orbit or those which were neutral (or not important enough to previously be courted) which then seek to entrench themselves even further in the existing order which is run by the US for protection. The issue is exacerbated by the fact that China legitimately needs to act in order to secure its energy. China unlike the US is not energy independent and a power whose energy pipeline is at the mercy of the United States Navy is really no power at all. Hence the aggressive actions over the 9 dash line (oil reserves) and other elements of the BRI in particular to Pakistan to try and bypass that issue as much as possible. It is also why the Chinese are moving at breakneck speed to build a blue water capable navy and secure logistics facilities abroad. Such actions of course only serve to alarm its neighbours even more and push them into the arms of the US. They want to be acknowledged as the head honcho of the region and a major player on the global stage and they want it now. The logical thing to do would be to establish dominance over New Delhi but India is a nuclear power in its own right, controls the vital oil tanker routes coming out of Saudia Arabia, and a bellicose approach would just drive India headlong into the Quad alliance even if China could gain a momentary advantage. So the hard approach is unlikely to work out long term but the soft approach is no guarantee either. Paranoia exists where any conciliatory actions may not be reciprocated (can't show weakness) and India might choose to cooperate in the Quad anyways in order to further its own geopolitical ambition as it seeks to replace China as the manufacturer of the world. The Chinese are simply caught in between right now and for whatever reason have run out of patience to continue to wait and insist on sitting at the head of the table now. However no one else is really interested in that while the US remains the naval power of the world and by the time the US actually does fade from the scene, China is worried that India's own rise to the fore will put a cramp in their ambitions. Its a tough spot to be in for a power that desperately craves status and its own periphery to rule over so the ability of Chinese strategic thinkers to properly analyze exactly what India's long term ambitions are and how it is likely to execute on those ambitions is paramount.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 02:42
|
|
|
When emergency care departments are collapsing under load, zero covid or not is pretty immaterial: the priority is to break the cycle of transmission now before the tsunami gets larger At the margins one can contest policies like separating family members, which is highly questionable for Covid-19 and indeed Shanghai authorities have since backed off on it and Hong Kong never bothered. But one could readily imagine a similar coronavirus like SARS-CoV-1 where such separation would have made sense. However, most cities are not Shanghai. A megapolis like the Beijing metropolitan area, which has two digits of daily cases amongst tens of millions of people, would benefit far more from aggressive vaccination of seniors rather than aggressive testing and movement controls. China can indeed both be understating death counts in the exponential-growth cities and yet overplaying zero-covid everywhere else.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 03:59
|
|
|
That's a legit good post mikec
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
Nobody is denying Chinas rough geographic status or its dreams of being/is a world power. To beat american hemogony it needs its own and for that it needs friends. Its just not very good at making friends. Its best international relations are with such all stars like pakistan north korea and a humilated russia. Like with India did any of the Chinese actually think that deal through? You know how humiliating it is to give up land? Especially since India and Pakistan have a multitude of similiar border disputes. What did china offer for this? A factory and promises to be made later. Then they act offended when India ignores thier garbage offer
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 04:29
|
|
|
it's not spelt out in the article, but it's true that China's military expenditure is so large relative to India's today (never mind in the near future) that predicting that a 'rational' India should just humbly give way to Chinese interests would make sense. Ramping up forces and engaging in intimidation did not suffice, so it's time to teach such irrational and irresponsible neighbours that the threat has teeth. This straightforwardly ignores India's own internal narrative of itself, which points to the first Sino-Indian war which was likewise lopsided in favour of China in terms of forces, and yet India sustained its overall strategic security by pivoting hard from the US (which supported India, but demanded unacceptable conditions for aid) to the USSR fresh from the Sino-Soviet split for support. A pro-Nehru account blames the West for abandoning India when only the Soviets would provide meaningful support; an anti-Nehru account blames Nehru for vacillating on Western support to begin with in a vain attempt to sustain the anticolonial prestige that was rapidly passing to Nasser and Mao and Castro; regardless India tells itself it survived through canny diplomacy in its own interests and so it's quick to reach for the same button again.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 06:18
|
|
|
The logic behind "look at our military expenditures and be afraid" was never terribly solid to begin with There was a video of a bus full of PLA soldiers crying as they were sent to the border. Needless to say they lost the skirmish with the Indians pretty badly. Despera fucked around with this message at 07:42 on May 10, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 07:37
|
|
|
Despera posted:The logic behind "look at our military expenditures and be afraid" was never terribly solid to begin with
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 13:43
|
|
|
hekaton posted:But strictness and effectiveness correlate extremely well, right? Not in a way which is very useful. Nobody's going to be picking apart the DPRK's covid policies for their effectiveness, just for the secondary crisis they promoted in an attempt to handle pandemic with crackdown. There's also the matter that 'effectiveness' has to be separated from when it's actually just 'lies about and conceals disease and mortality rates' and the combinatory effect is that if we are looking for positive lessons about disease containment model you have to learn from china's mistakes as much as from more libertine approaches from the west.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2022 22:05
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:They were singing a song (I think "Green Shoots in the Army" or something like that) about wishing their families farewell but it went viral in Indian media to suggest the PLA is comprised of pussies. I don't believe that is true. The video "originated" out of taiwan. The sashes say "join the military out of honor" so the state media account of them being new recruits actully seems plausible.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
Despera posted:Nobody is denying Chinas rough geographic status or its dreams of being/is a world power. To beat american hemogony it needs its own and for that it needs friends. Its just not very good at making friends. Its best international relations are with such all stars like pakistan north korea and a humilated russia. But how do you make friends on the international stage? This is a world wholly different from interpersonal relationships between people. Remember that there are no "friends" as we know the term in our personal lives within the realm of international relations. Diplomats and politicians wax on about 'friends' from wherever or their 'special relationships' with some 'partner' but at the end of the day relations between nations, especially when one is strong and one is weak, are built on mutual needs and benefits or accomodating another state's needs because there is no choice in defacto terms. Treaties between Imperial centres of power typically are agreements over boundaries of influence so both can divert their attentions elsewhere. Treaties between an Imperial power and a periphery state typically are based on the periphery ceding territorial control, resources, or some degree of sovereignty over foreign relations in exchange for some sort of protection typically from the Imperial power itself and other smaller regional rivals. Take Canada and the United States for example - a clear vassal relationship. Both countries have been allies for the past 100 years with economic and military systems that are so integrated that it is difficult to tell where the sovereignty of the United States ends and where Canada's begins at times. The territorial integrity of Canada is effectively guaranteed by the United States. No other country, Russia and China included can ever make a serious bid at curtailing or infringing upon Canadian territory or resources while the United States remains a great power. Canada also enjoys favorable access to the largest most economically vibrant economy in the world via NAFTA. However, there is a serious cost to Canada's foreign policy. Canada cannot realistically divest itself of its partnership with the United States even if it wanted to or was beneficial to do so. Indeed it is the junior partner in all respects and must endure an endless parade of slights and affronts (constant violations of NAFTA, chided on military spending, being ignored over environmental issues with shared waterways) and is expected tokeep North America firmly in the American military sphere (deployment of the NORAD radar net) and expected to send troops to aid the US militarily in its adventures abroad. Even when Canada was nominally not a participant of OIF and popular support was heavily against the war, around a hundred Canadian exchange officers were embedded with American forces and the Canadian government could not pull them out without risking damage to the relationship. Included in that number was a Canadian General who was the XO of the US 3rd Corps and Canadian frigates were placed in command of naval task force patrolling the Persian Gulf! While none of the states within the US orbit in the Pacific nears this type of relationship, the tendrils the US has within the major players of like South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Indonesia, and Australia all run very deep, and opinions in both the elites and the populace within these countries largely see the US as a positive presence in the world. This is a testament to the success of US foreign policy in the decades it took to build these relationships since WW2. While the US extracts enormous benefits from its allies from basing rights, military tribute, and the ability to write significant sections of its 'allies' security policies, the benefits these allies derive are equally great in that the US guarantees stable, free, and open access to trade over the oceans to those who submit to its international system via the incomparable power of the United States Navy and to a lesser extent its land forces. This guarantee is the foundation of "friendships" and "relationships" in the Asia Pacific region with the US. In order to breakthrough this net, China must offer something more compelling - which at this stage it cannot. The United States, unlike many Great Powers of the past, has been careful not to abuse its allies to the point of disenfranchisement and thus remains the major partner of choice for many nations even with a rising power much closer to its shores. Of course, the US has the luxury to be even-handed given that it is secure internally both with respect to food and energy and maintains what likely is a decisive military edge vs China in most areas. The US is a net exporter of both while China is a net importer of both and its need to secure energy in particular drives its decision making in the South China Sea. Duarte's abrupt turn from China back to the US during the pandemic years is another consequence of the twin needs of China FP working against each other that was talked about in the article. It is true that its aggressive actions in the SCS that turned Duarte back towards the US is an example of being too arrogant but it is important to understand that Beijing feels vulnerable and has legitimate needs and interests to address. Needs that Washington would not hesitate to militarily act upon to address as seen in particular when it went into Iraq 1 and 2, Panama, Grenada, Bosnia etc. What frustrates Beijing is that it feels that the US should naturally withdraw from the region and recognize the growing clout. 20 years ago, globalization belonged to the US. In 2022, globalization belongs to China. Yet the United States since the Obama administration has pivoted and started what Beijing feels was a series of isolating moves. So how exactly are you supposed to make "friends" when a richer and stronger jerk comes around your neighborhood offering grab bags of cash, goodies, and security assurances of both the economic and military kind on the condition that you play on their team and stick with them whenever you feel that the rules of the game are rigged against you? Your options are to be belligerent or drop alpha male pretensions and ask for a seat at the table and wait. As discussed before, China no longer wants to wait.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 04:04
|
|
|
Despera posted:The video "originated" out of taiwan. The sashes say "join the military out of honor" so the state media account of them being new recruits actully seems plausible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYfK2_VfY9g Song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-YSwvmACSM
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 05:03
|
|
|
MikeC posted:
This is a good post with a lot of valid points. I cant summon the effort to make an equally long post but I will dispute some of your findings You can make friends on an international stage. Even if you dont share a culture, a language or similar values two countries can find mutual self interests and as even the chinese acknowledge bilatiral relations dont have to be a 0 sum game. I deeply disagree with your classification that canada is a vassal state of the united states. The US government has little to no say in the internal running of Canada and while foreign relations are different I could point out say the vietnam war where canada directly aided us dissidents or the second iraq war where canada refused to use troops. I dont want a 5 page derail on this subject and I think maybe they are closer to vassal state than just have mutual self interests. That still leaves a lot of room. Third China had a seat at the table. China had something no other country could offer. 1.4 billion consumers. China and the US were and still are partners in a lot of things. I would argue not Obama who changed the relationship but Xi Jinping. What happened was Xi jinping decided to nationalize and tarrif the gently caress out of that consumer market. Chinese citizens are legally required to steal international technology for instance. Xi Jinping took their biggest carrot on the world stage and poisoned it. Now all he can do is strong man bullshit nobody is falling for.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 06:05
|
|
|
International relations are often driven by self-interest rather than just sentimentality, but it's not a zero-sum game, and there are more abstract principles that come into things rather than just economic or military security. There's even a lot of rational reasons to make "moral" choices for international relations, strongest of which being if you want to discourage things like genocide or wars of aggression or lack of rule of law, if you put up economic barriers to countries with governments that endorse policies you disagree with, that'll have some kind of influence. At least hopefully. China is trying to use its foreign relations in a similar way to push its values, but it wants to discourage countries from punishing other countries for aggressive expansion, genocide, and making judgements about certain countries having unreliable rule of law. It's not outright trying to weaken ties with democracies that are strong on the idea of civil rights, but it also makes its opinions known by making use of tools that the US doesn't, like censoring opinions it disapproves of. That's not even getting into various inaccuracies with equivocations between American and Chinese imperialism, like how the US was pulling out of the Philippines at about the same time that China was going into Taiwan. Also MikeC posted:Duarte
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 17:06
|
|
|
The left hand of prestige-project and foreign-policy adventurists, who make decisions and pick fights predicated on an inevitable rise, don't talk to the right hand of economic policymakers who continually warn that China is richer than it once was but it is still not rich and is still desperately dependent on US and European markets for its continued growth and still has a fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable growth model etc. As I've remarked previously though, this was also a generational phenomenon amongst both Japanese thinkers prior to the real estate pop and then the assorted new 'tiger' High-Performing Asian Economies states prior to the 1997 crisis - explaining that this particular boom growth can be attributed to some supposedly unique cultural-sociological-political characteristics etc. Chinese discourse has reached that stage somewhat earlier than its predecessors as it's much bigger: it has very rich regions, the size of big countries in themselves, that can support this kind of self-indulgent discourse My guess is that this politics is unavoidable - if you have an entire generation who has only known unimaginable change for the better for decades on end, it's equally hard to now imagine it ever stopping. That demands a particular kind of thinking. But eventually one has a post-postwar-boom first-ever-sustained-recession of one's very own: not necessarily one that liberalises, nor that necessarily effects any regime change, but that definitely brings a certain kind of overconfidence back down to earth. Influence is now something to be worked for and safeguarded, rather than an inevitability to be taken for granted. China is just not there yet. It doesn't have to be a very large crisis (1997 did not permanently dent Southeast Asia either), and you don't need to stare at Chinese financial statistics very long to perceive the grey rhinos lurking ill-disguised on the lawn - when China does have a financial crisis, it will be probably of a type that its own leaders have consistently warned loudly about since Wen Jiabao was Premier. ronya fucked around with this message at 17:52 on May 11, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 17:41
|
|
|
MikeC posted:Take Canada and the United States for example - a clear vassal relationship. How do you define a vassal state?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
Kavros posted:How do you define a vassal state? Poorly.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
Kavros posted:How do you define a vassal state? a simple, functional definition: do they have the ability to meaningfully differ from their overlord on any matter of foreign policy without having their leash abruptly pulled back, followed by a gasping "what we meant to say was we agree completely and will do as requested, please do not replace our leadership with a leadership more amenable to your aims, thank you" as an example, North Korea is a vassal state of China, and Japan is a vassal state of America. vassals are not -entirely- without leverage; overthrowing them is frequently a messy and inconvenient process, and that gives them some leeway in dragging their feet in answering their overlords' demands. but their political leadership understands that their choices in foreign policy are limited to how high to jump when the boss says "jump."
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 00:13
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:a simple, functional definition: do they have the ability to meaningfully differ from their overlord on any matter of foreign policy without having their leash abruptly pulled back, followed by a gasping "what we meant to say was we agree completely and will do as requested, please do not replace our leadership with a leadership more amenable to your aims, thank you" This isn't a very good definition if those are your examples. North Korea absolutely differs from China significantly on various fronts of economics, domestic policy, foreign policy, and so on. The only thing that would result in China sending in troops is if North Korea suddenly collapsed and peacekeepers were needed to stem any unrest or massive migration. Japan likewise doesn't embark on America's adventurism due to their constitutionally bound commitments to no offencive or warlike acts; and significantly during the years of Japan's post-war economic miracle differed considerably from the US. If anything Japan is basically the UK of the Pacific; a nation that could be said to have a special on equal footing relationship. Client State is perhaps a better term, since it more accurately encapsulates the nature of the relationship. The client relies on their protector for support and is typically the main export market for military goods and have significant economic and trade ties; but this doesn't very well wholly encompass Japan while more accurate for North Korea. Neither North Korea or Japan are at any risk of having their leadership replaced by their respective "Overlords", neither frankly is Canada in some eventuality Canada decided to purchase Gripens instead of the F-35. It's probably much more accurate to suggest that the reason why North Korea and Japan are allied to China and the US respectively; is not because of China's and the US's ability to make do on some hypothetical threat; but because China and the US offer something that the other cannot. I don't really think there's any nation that meets your definition short of maybe Chechnya in regards to Russia. Not even Iraq, who the US had recently had under military occupation, is at risk of having its democratically elected leadership replaced at the US's whimsy.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
Im sure china loved south korea and japan rearming after missile boy decided to swing his dick around
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
Your definition leaves out the crucially important tributes of grain and cattle to be offered in tribute each year.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 00:52
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:a simple, functional definition: do they have the ability to meaningfully differ from their overlord on any matter of foreign policy without having their leash abruptly pulled back, followed by a gasping "what we meant to say was we agree completely and will do as requested, please do not replace our leadership with a leadership more amenable to your aims, thank you" It's hard to differentiate in that sense though between countries just following their continued rational interest and actually being locked into one of these subservient relationships. It's not often that a country uses its power of self-determination to just radically change foreign policy against its continued self-interest. I think Brexit was a rare example, but the fact that so many countries haven't decided to out of nowhere  ties with their allies out of nowhere isn't evidence enough that they're under somebody else's thumb.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
Kavros posted:the issue with what's going on is that we cannot confuse strictness of a disease containment policy with effectiveness, and where china has taken zero covid this year is showcasing that issue in abundance. you have to refine policy and adapt it to the realities of what you can do. We cannot confuse strictness with effectiveness because of the example where the city which was less strict than others had a less effective containment than others? I'm struggling to follow the logic here.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
therobit posted:Your definition leaves out the crucially important tributes of grain and cattle to be offered in tribute each year. Remember when Trudeu promised him and his knights to Biden as his leige lord?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
therobit posted:Your definition leaves out the crucially important tributes of grain and cattle to be offered in tribute each year. in the modern era we have replaced this with a number of thoroughly useless fighter jets the vassal is expected to purchase. how many f-35s is Canada up to now, and when do you think they will be used for anything other reducing the surplus population of Canadian fighter pilots
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 04:13
|
|
|
reminder that this is the China thread, for posting about China
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 04:24
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:in the modern era we have replaced this with a number of thoroughly useless fighter jets the vassal is expected to purchase. Th F-35 is actually an extremely capable plane; it's probably on balance not the most  "Optimal" plane for Canada's strategic circumstances; but it's a far cry from useless. They're essentially invulnerable to anything Russia can throw at it and Russia is the largest geopolitical adversary to Canada (because of the arctic). Canada only *just* agreed to purchase F-35's, the US has already produced over 700 F-35's, it isn't going to take long to produce or supply Canada the 88 F-35's its ordered; and of course Canada still needs to actually negotiate this contract with Lockheed Martin, but the problem isn't production; it's politics. There's been a negligible number of accidents/crashes of F-35 airframes; compared to virtually any other plane. At a glance it seems like it's a total of 7 accidents out of 780 frames in service across dozens of operating countries. e: Sorry didn't see the mod note if talking about the F-35 is off topic but I think the F-35's capabilities are kinda relevant to China geopolitics. Raenir Salazar fucked around with this message at 04:58 on May 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 04:30
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:in the modern era we have replaced this with a number of thoroughly useless fighter jets the vassal is expected to purchase. Chinese state media much like this guys gang tang suggest that every US ally is their slave, toiling under the US boot just waiting for a chance for china to free them. Speaking of canada whatever happened with princess huewei? I guess hostage diplomacy works Despera fucked around with this message at 05:20 on May 12, 2022 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 05:06
|
|
|
Kavros posted:How do you define a vassal state? I would define a vassal state as any state which has ceded a significant degree of scope in an area in which it normally has sovereignty to another state, especially in the field of foreign policymaking, in exchange for tangible benefits in the economic or security realm. Ie, a state which voluntarily limits the scope of decisions in some area so as to not be in conflict with the core strategic interests of the suzerain. This could either be spelled out legally or implicitly understood, by both parties in exchange for some package of benefits but retains a significant degree of autonomy in areas that are outside its suzerain's core interests (ie they don't care). The degree of sovereignty ceded needs to be one-sided and significant (ie not something done out of mere convenience), is voluntary, and is restricted to respecting core interests (otherwise you are just a coerced colonial subject or a puppet state which isn't the same thing), and the vassal must receive something of significant value that the vassal would not normally be able to guarantee for itself (think territorial integrity, guaranteed access to strategic resources) and is not simply being pillaged for resources or access to land. Canada fits the bill IMO. Nominally the closest ally of the United States but its foreign policy decisions, especially with respect to North America must align with the US Munroe doctrine or at the very least not be in direct opposition to it. In return, it privileged access to US markets and the ability to be a free rider in the realm of territorial security. Now overlord and vassal may use this existing relationship as a bedrock to form additional agreements which are mutually beneficial outside the realm of core concerns but the relationship is rooted in it. To bring it back to China, I am unsure as to the exact nature of the relationship between China and North Korea as there is so much we don't know about North Korea, its internal politics, and how decisions are made in Pyongang so I wouldn't know how to classify exactly. Cambodia would be an example of a vassal-like relationship with China. China provides massive financial resources and economic stimulus into the country and in exchange, the Cambodians have not been offside with the Chinese in global diplomatic affairs since the early 2000s going so far as to defend the Chinese treatment of Uyghurs and playing the role of disruptor in ASEAN. China would certainly like to add more countries to that list. Despera posted:You can make friends on an international stage. Even if you dont share a culture, a language or similar values two countries can find mutual self interests and as even the chinese acknowledge bilatiral relations dont have to be a 0 sum game. I certainly think you can be *friendly* towards other nations, as in to speak diplomatically and not treating others with disdain. But I don't think that friendliness adds up to a whole lot when two friendly states are put in a position where they have to prioritize niceties vs core interests. China and Russia are good examples. Both Putin and Xi are definitely friendly towards each other, but neither is willing to sell out its own core ambitions to support the other. Their basis in cooperation goes only as far as they can mutually help each other, usually in the realm of offsetting US power. Just weeks before both countries proclaimed that their friendship has no limits. For such a chummy pair, China's support for Russia's war and its aid in evading sanctions seems very muted and low-key. China will definitely buy up more Russian energy on the cheap, but as you might have read, internally it feels it must walk a tight rope between openly allying with Russia and keeping Russia onside in case the Taiwan issue becomes critical.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
Fritz the Horse posted:reminder that this is the China thread, for posting about China To bring this back around, anyone know if there are any good sources that compare Chinese and European feudalism?
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2022 06:02
|
|