Tag: China

Australia will be Chinese

I was wondering how long it would take before people began to realize that Australia is going to be a Chinese continent.

A Chinese propagandist has sparked outrage after claiming the superpower should take control of Australia, in part due to its colonial past. The furore began when the China hawk, who goes by the name ‘BeijingDai’, shared a map to social media on Saturday with Australia labelled as a ‘Chinese vassal state’.

New Zealand, Myanmar and the Solomon Islands would be given the same classification under the plans, while much of south-east Asia would fall under ‘China’s sphere of influence’. The self-described China ‘patriot’ said occupation of Australia would be a cost-effective alternative to direct occupation of the entire south-east Asian region.

‘Southeast Asia has a huge population. If China conquers them, it will need to need them and develop them. This is a super hard task,’ he wrote on social media. He added: ‘However, annexing Australia is a very cost-effective deal. ‘Australia has over seven million kilometres of land and abundant resources, but its population is even smaller than that of Shanghai.’

He claimed Australia’s colonial history would make Chinese occupation not just cost-effective, but morally defensible.

It’s not only cost-effective and morally defensible, it’s also inevitable. Not unlike the United States, Australia sealed its own fate back in 1973 when it officially abandoned its White Australia policy. Now there are 1.5 million Chinese residents, representing about six percent of the total population. This demonstrates that China can easily flood Australia with immigrants and ensure an outright electoral majority without a single shot ever being fired.

Remember, 17 million non-British people are now resident in the UK, pretty much none of whom were there prior to 1948. There are only 27 million people in Australia. So China can, and will, take control of the continent whenever it decides to do so, now that its navy has reached effective parity in the Pacific.

And given the Clown World rhetoric about the morality of migration and the absolute priority of people seeking freedom from authoritarian governments, there isn’t anything that the West can even say, let alone do, to object.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Last Bluff

Big Serge explains the real reason why the USA cannot afford to provide any Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine:

The basic pattern here is well established. The United States has done what it can to backstop Ukrainian strike capabilities, but it has held them at a level where Ukraine’s damage output falls far short of decisive levels. So long as that is the case, Russia has clearly demonstrated that it will simply eat the punches and retaliate against Ukraine. Hence, when the United States helps Ukraine target Russian oil facilities, it is Ukraine that receives the reprisal, and it is Ukraine which has its natural gas production annihilated as the winter approaches. In a sense, neither side is really trying to deter the other at all. The United States has raised the cost of this war for Russia, but not enough to create any real pressure for Moscow to end the conflict; in response, Russia punishes Ukraine, which is something the United States does not really care about. The result is a sort of geostrategic Picture of Dorian Gray, where the United States vicariously inflicts cathartic damage on Russia, but Ukraine accrues all the soul damage.

In the case of Tomahawks, the risk-reward calculus is just not there. Tomahawks are a strategically invaluable asset that the United States cannot afford to hand out like candy. Even if the launch systems could be provided (highly doubtful), the missiles could not be made available in sufficient quantities to make a difference. The range of the missiles, however, significantly raises the probability of miscalculation or uncontrolled escalation. Ukraine shooting American missiles at energy infrastructure in Belgorod or Rostov is one thing; shooting them at the Kremlin is another thing entirely.

There is, however, another aspect of this which seems to be garnering little attention. The biggest risk of sending Tomahawks is not that the Ukrainians will blow up the Kremlin and start World War Three. The bigger risk is that the Tomahawks are used, and Russia simply moves on after eating the strikes. Tomahawks are arguably one of the last – if not the last – rung in the escalation ladder for the USA. We have rapidly run through the chain of systems that can be given to the AFU, and little remains except a few strike systems like the Tomahawk or the JASSM. Ukraine has generally received everything it has asked for. In the case of Tomahawks, however, the United States is running the most serious risk of all: what if the Russians simply shoot down some of the missiles and eat the rest of the strikes? It’s immaterial whether the Tomahawks damage Russian powerplants or oil refineries. If Tomahawks are delivered and consumed without seriously jarring Russian nerves, the last escalatory card will have been played. If Russia perceives that America has reached the limits of its ability to raise the costs of the war for Russia, it undercuts the entire premise of negotiations. More simply put, Tomahawks are most valuable as an asset to threaten with.

The USA has been relentlessly bluffing, and the Russians have been relentlessly calling those bluffs, since the launch of the Special Military Operation nearly four years ago. There can be little doubt that the Russians will do the same thing if the Tomahawks are deployed against them, and then the US military will be revealed as the paper tiger it is so far outside its zone of influence.

Which, of course, is the one thing the US military cannot afford to happen in light of its global pretensions and asymmetric war with China.

DISCUSS ON SG

Cold War 2.0

The strategists of Clown World have belatedly realized that the neocons are not only lunatics, but rank amateurs when it comes to assessing military capabilities and are attempting to establish some sort of Cold War-style detente with China before the asymmetric warfare of the last 25 years goes hot. A 100-page report offers some principles and initiatives conceived to replace the outmoded idea that the US military can simply enforce the will of its masters with regards to the Middle Kingdom. (PDF)

Several broad principles can guide efforts to stabilize intense rivalries

  • Each side accepts that some degree of modus vivendi must necessarily be part of the relationship.
  • Each side accepts the essential political legitimacy of the other.
  • In specific issue areas, especially those disputed by the two sides, each side works to develop sets of shared rules, norms, institutions, and other tools that create lasting conditions of a stable modus vivendi within that domain over a specific period (such as three to five years).
  • Each side practices restraint in the development of capabilities explicitly designed to undermine the deterrent and defensive capabilities of the other in ways that would create an existential risk to its homeland.
  • Each side accepts some essential list of characteristics of a shared vision of organizing principles for world politics that can provide at least a baseline for an agreed status quo.
  • There are mechanisms and institutions in place — from long-term personal ties to physical communication links to agreed norms and rules of engagement for crises and risky situations — that help provide a moderating or return-to-stable-equilibrium function.

Six broad-based initiatives can help moderate the intensity of the U.S.-China rivalry

  • Clarify U.S. objectives in the rivalry with language that explicitly rejects absolute versions of victory and accepts the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party.
  • Reestablish several trusted lines of communication between senior officials.
  • Improve crisis-management practices, links, and agreements between the two sides.
  • Seek specific new agreements — a combination of formal public accords and private understandings — to limit the U.S.-China cyber competition.
  • Declare mutual acceptance of strategic nuclear deterrence and a willingness to forswear technologies and doctrines that would place the other side’s nuclear deterrent at risk.
  • Seek modest cooperative ventures on issues of shared interest or humanitarian concern.

I think it is at least 15 years too late for any sort of meaningful rapprochement between China and the Clown World West, because the Chinese now understand what we have also learned in the interim: there is an ancient and malevolent evil that is not limited by human reason or timeframes that is the motivating force behind Clown World. Any compromise with it will eventually result in submission and destruction.

I am not the only one who is skeptical. Simplicius, too, has serious doubts about the ability of the Western states to change their course, as well as the probability that the Chinese will be convinced to alter their own.

It’s clear that RAND is trying desperately to make US policymakers abandon their obsolete and blinkered world view centered on the idea that any challenger must by its nature represent the selfsame kind of hegemonic exceptionalism cultivated by the US itself for over a century. The US views the entire world as a threat in the same light that a thief mistrusts all those around him—it is past guilt sublimated into national suspicion and Machiavellian subversiveness.

The US, being the pernicious by-blow of the late British Empire, has inherited all the hawkish trappings of its former parent. RAND here attempts to ween the US political culture away from this perpetually adversarial and hostile approach to foreign diplomacy because, as it has become apparent, the people ‘behind the scenes’ have slowly recognized not that confrontation with China will lead to some kind of global war, but rather the much barer reality that the US simply isn’t what it once was, and does not have the sheer overwhelming capability to bully the world’s foremost ascendant power. Thus, this RAND call to action is not—as they would have us believe—some kind of de-escalatory peacenik measure, but rather a desperate attempt to stave off the US from a historically fatal humiliation and geopolitical defeat at the hands of China.

I tend to agree that this attempt at establishing a new detente is nothing more than the desperate flailings of a failing power to avoid its now-inevitable decline and fall.

DISCUSS ON SG

Asymmetric Economic Warfare

Despite being more vulnerable to trade war pain due to its export surplus, China has adroitly managed to gain the upper hand in the economic conflict by taking advantage of the fact that semiconductors require input factors that are almost entirely under Chinese control.

Despite the show of progress and professed optimism for a potential de-escalation in the Madrid trade talks, the US wasted no time to launch a series of trade and tech sanctions against China immediately afterwards, just like it launched the sneak attack on Iran shortly after its 5th round nuclear talks with Tehran.

  • The US Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) tightened its chip ban on China, expanding the embargo to cover all semiconductor related software and equipment sales to China, in an effort to completely choke off China’s ability for chip production
  • Washington expanded its entity list (i.e. black list) to deny high end sales to businesses outside of China that have 50% or more Chinese ownership
  • It announced a plan to charge million-dollar port fees for any Chinese-operated shipping companies, Chinese-made ships, or non-Chinese shippers with Chinese-made ships in their fleet or on their order books, in an effort to undermine China’s shipping building industry
  • Washington also put a 721% tariff on Chinese clean energy products such as solar panels
  • It imposed 50% tariff on semi-finished copper products and copper-intensive goods (e.g., wiring, batteries) under Section 232, targeting China’s dominance in EV/tech supply chains
  • It ended de minimis exemption for low-value packages, hitting e-commerce from Chinese platforms such as Temu and Shein

Faced with the bad faith from the Trump regime, China retaliated swiftly with a suite of counter actions:

  • Beijing published its latest restrictions on rare earth products to deny any sales of China-sourced rare earth magnets, processing technology, and equipment to foreign military and semi-conductor industry
  • It revoked import license for US lumber and soybeans. China was the biggest buyer of US soybeans in the past and accounted for over 50% its export. But it has ordered no purchase in 2025
  • Beijing announced it would charge reciprocal port fees for any US-operated or US-owned shipping companies. China runs 7 out of the world’s top ten container ports and has by far the highest port calls. Though the US builds few ships and few large shipping companies are US operated, US pension funds and asset managers own large shares in some of the world’s top shipping companies like Maersk which are now subject to the port fees. This move directly targets US financial interests
  • China also tightened up export of lithium ion and graphite anode, critical for green transformation
  • It expanded the unreliable list (China’s answer to the entity list) to cover more US defense contractors, tech firms, and critical mineral companies. It also launched anti-trust investigation against Qualcomm, a large US chip manufacturer

The latest tit for tats strongly indicates China is ready to move up the escalation ladder in its confrontation with the US on trade and technology issues.

In particular, Beijing’s enhanced rare earth restrictions are expected to deal a massive blow to high tech and military production in the US and its vassals.

In its embargo of chip technology against China, the US utilized the Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR) to block chip export to China if non-US made chips use any American technology, software, or equipment somewhere along the supply chain.

In essence, the FDPR allows US to claim jurisdiction to any products US technology touches even if it is made overseas such as the case with TSMC and ASML. The rule gives the US extraterritorial reach.

With the new rare earth restrictions, China flips the logic back to the US. Beijing has announced any non-Chinese companies operating anywhere must obtain Beijing’s approval to export rare earth magnets or semiconductors if those products contain Chinese original rare earth, or if they are produced using Chinese rare earth technology, process or equipment.

Beijing is denying all rare earth products, technology, equipment, and technical support to foreign end users it doesn’t approve.

The Chinese economic strategists understand that in an economic war, pain flows downstream. The US thought it was in the driver’s seat – and indeed, I assumed much the same due to the fact that the US economy would benefit greatly from refraining from importing goods from China and onshoring its now-absent industrial manufacturing capabilities.

But the stranglehold China has upon the materials required for modern warmaking materials, particularly drones and semiconductors, means that the USA will have to choose between its ability to make war and its ability to maintain the global Clown World economy. And for the first time, it is not possible for Uncle Sam to choose guns and butter.

DISCUSS ON SG

China Warns the USA

China is no longer content to permit the USA to throw its economic weight around without consequences.

Beijing has made it clear that it won’t yield to Washington’s latest tariff threats, urging the United States to seek a negotiated settlement instead of escalating tensions.

The warning came as part of an official statement released by China’s Ministry of Commerce on Sunday. The response followed US President Donald Trump’s plan to impose a 100% tariff on Chinese imports, citing Beijing’s new restrictions on rare earth exports – vital materials used in products from smartphones to fighter jets.

“China’s position on the trade war is consistent: we do not want it, but we are not afraid of it,” the ministry stated.

The Chinese people are even less inclined to submit to US posturing on trade and interference with Chinese affairs.

We are simply sick and tired of the nonstop demonization of anything related to China by the US. This export ban of rare earth minerals is just the start. If the US does not correct its course, and stop interfering our legitimate rights for development, then we will engineer global economic collapse. Do you really think you can take China down, without us taking you down too? After that, we will let our weapons do the talking.

I was on Chinese state television during President Trump’s first term. Back then, neither the economists nor the journalist believed that Trump would start a trade war with China, which I suspect is why the initial Chinese response to all of the US provocations were so mild and passive. But now, with the panoply of sanctions, direct and indirect, that are being imposed upon China, such as the attempt to ban flights over Russian territory from landing in the USA because it provides Chinese airlines with an advantage of European and US airlines that can’t fly over Russian territory, the Chinese have decided to start playing hardball.

And Larry Johnson explains why China is, contra the expectations of economists like me who were primarily looking at the overall trade picture, actually in a very strong position vis-a-vis the USA in a trade war.

Drones
China dominates the US commercial drone market, with Chinese firms supplying the vast majority of units.

  • Import Share: Approximately 80-90% of US commercial drones are Chinese-made, led by DJI (50-70% market share) and Autel Robotics (15%). US imports of Chinese unmanned aircraft dropped 58.9% from Jan-Nov 2023 to Jan-Nov 2024 due to tariffs and restrictions, but China still holds over 70% of the residual market.
  • Broader Reliance: In 2025, US tariffs reached 170%, tripling prices and slashing imports by up to 75%, yet no viable domestic alternatives have scaled to replace this volume. Military and consumer sectors remain vulnerable, with ongoing Section 232 investigations into national security risks.
  • Implications: Disruptions could halt 80%+ of commercial operations (e.g., agriculture, surveying), per CSIS analysis.

Drone Components
US drone manufacturing heavily relies on Chinese-sourced parts, complicating diversification efforts.

  • Supply Chain Dependence: China provides 70-90% of key components like motors, flight controllers, imaging equipment, and batteries. In 2024, China restricted exports of these to the US, causing price surges of 200-300% and supply shortages.
  • Recent Trends: By April 2025, combined US tariffs hit 170% on components, disrupting global chains; 15 Chinese firms were added to the US Entity List in October 2025 for supplying parts used in conflicts. Indirect reliance persists via third countries (e.g., Vietnam assembly).
  • Implications: The US military drone supply chain is “deeply dependent” on Chinese inputs, per Forbes, with domestic production lagging; restrictions weakened Ukraine’s drone capabilities as a proxy example.

Processed Rare Earth Minerals
Processed rare earths (e.g., oxides, compounds) are essential for electronics, EVs, and defense; China controls ~90% of global processing.

  • Import Share: China supplied 70% of US rare earth compounds and metals imports from 2020-2023, with 2024 estimates holding at ~70-77% (10.4 million kg total imports). Net import reliance dropped to 80% in 2024 from >95% prior years, thanks to minor diversification (e.g., Malaysia 13%).
  • Value and Volume: 2024 imports valued at $170 million (down 11% from 2023); apparent consumption ~6,600 tons.
  • Recent Trends: In 2025, China tightened export controls on seven elements, impacting US defense; US mined 45 kilotons but exports 95% for Asian processing.
  • Implications: 70-80% exposure leaves sectors like renewables and missiles vulnerable; USGS warns of supply risks.

So while the USA is in a stronger overall position and will benefit greatly from onshoring manufacturing and industrial capacity during a trade war, China is in a much stronger military position if the trade war becomes an actual war, either direct or by proxy.

DISCUSS ON SG

Draining the Western Brains

High-level thinkers don’t communicate with the masses because we quite literally can’t. The problem with Western civilization is not that its high-level thinkers are unable to communicate with the masses, because high-level thinkers have never been able to effectively communicate with the masses. It’s a little ironic that one of the better popularizers fails to understand the importance of the popularizer’s role in translating and transmitting the original thinker’s ideas to a public that is more than two standard deviations below him.

I deal with it by showing high-level thinkers how to communicate with the masses.

Like Wilber and Spiral Dynamics… they CREATED the models that I apply in my work, but they didn’t communicate them in a way that made the average person care. I did. I was like “ARENT BITCHES CRAZY? HERE’S WHY” and showed them.

High-level thinkers have to use their abilities to appeal to the masses more than everyone else. NO ONE IS COMING TO HELP.

But this isn’t really the issue anyhow. The issue is that the current rulers of Western Civilization hate it and every element of it, and would like nothing better than to destroy it if they could only figure out how to kill the golden goose and yet keep its golden eggs.

Most high-level thinkers are banished and deprived of platforms and popularizers due to their inability to accept the satanic, anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-American Narrative that has been required of any public intellectual for the last fifty years.

As one reader here has noted, China responded to Wang Hunin by promoting him to the Chief Ideologue of the Chinese Communist Party despite the fact that he didn’t even belong to the Party, whereas the USA responded to me by deplatforming me and systematically depriving me of opportunities and resources.

This isn’t a complaint. It’s merely an observation. One of the benefits of being a high-level thinker is far less interest in the prizes and fancy pants with which the status-obsessed midwits are obsessed. But imagine the amount of scientific resources now being wasted across the West on finding useless results “consistent with the theory of evolution by natural selection” that could be more profitably spent on actual science if I had even a fraction of the respect and institutional support that Mr. Hunin enjoys in China. And that’s just one topic…

One of the reasons that China has already far surpassed the West, and that Russia inevitably will as well, is that both societies genuinely value their intellectual elites. The West, despite its pretensions to being “an open society” is in an increasingly fragile state of intellectual sclerosis, where even the most obvious truths must go unspoken, and better yet, unobserved. This is why I anticipate that the most promising young Western intellectuals will be officially incentivized to move to China and to Russia over the next three decades, a policy that will eventually be followed by entrepreneurial and technological booms there.

DISCUSS ON SG

Focus on the Homeland

A long overdue shift from maintaining the failing Pax Americana to defending the US homeland would be a very welcome change.

Pentagon officials are proposing the department prioritize protecting the homeland and Western Hemisphere, a striking reversal from the military’s yearslong mandate to focus on the threat from China. A draft of the newest National Defense Strategy, which landed on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s desk last week, places domestic and regional missions above countering adversaries such as Beijing and Moscow, according to three people briefed on early versions of the report.

The move would mark a major shift from recent Democrat and Republican administrations, including President Donald Trump’s first term in office, when he referred to Beijing as America’s greatest rival. And it would likely inflame China hawks in both parties who view the country’s leadership as a danger to U.S. security.

“This is going to be a major shift for the U.S. and its allies on multiple continents,” said one of the people briefed on the draft document. “The old, trusted U.S. promises are being questioned.”

Why the American people should give one quantum of a damn about “old, trusted US promises” given to foreigners when none of the promises given to them have been kept is an obvious question. But Simplicius and others doubt that this “major shift” is real anyhow.

Recall the US even under Trump has dragged its feet for years on initiatives to pull troops from Iraq, Europe, etc. An excuse is always somehow resurrected at the last moment which buys the MIC time and keeps US occupation forces perpetually in places where their presence stirs conflict, exacerbates tensions, and unnecessarily provokes so-called “adversaries” like Russia, China, or Iran. US troops in Syria, for instance—which Trump has likewise failed to pull—have done nothing but facilitate conflict, act as JTACs for Israeli strike corridors, etc.; the claim of being some sort of ‘peacekeepers’ is a sham.

If the troops are brought back from Europe and the Middle East, the borders are manned, and the mass repatriations begin, then perhaps we can take some of these pronouncements seriously. But until then, it’s all just irrelevant noise.

DISCUSS ON SG

Switzerland Isn’t Neutral

The Swiss media is quite rightly beginning to worry about the inevitable implications of the Swiss government’s decision to abandon neutrality now that the rest of the world has taken note of the way in which the Swiss government is waging economic and proxy war on Russia at the behest of the European Union.

Is Switzerland still neutral? People ask Google this question, or a similar one, some 14,000 times a month – outside Switzerland and in English.

In a trial search, an English-language article from Turkish state media shows up quite high on the list. “Why Switzerland is breaking away from 500-year-old neutrality,” says the headline. Although the text itself is more nuanced, the headline sets the wrong tone and skews the readers’ interpretation. And as journalists know, far more people read the headline than the actual article.

There are various reasons why people abroad may be asking Google about Swiss neutrality. One is that foreign players – in particular Russian propaganda channels – are spreading misinformation on the issue.

It is important that people who take the trouble to research Swiss neutrality have access to reliable and accurate information. Anyone who claims that Switzerland is no longer neutral is assuming that Switzerland has picked a side. And anyone who has taken sides can be viewed with hostility.

It is therefore in Switzerland’s interest to ensure that its neutrality, which has been the guiding principle of its foreign policy since 1815, is correctly communicated to the international public. If a person hears over and over again that Switzerland is no longer neutral, they can easily come to perceive this as the dominant view. This is the case even if the statement is made multiple times by the same source but reaches them through different channels. Frequently repeated untruths have a proven effect.

And frequently repeated truths have an even greater effect, because the most powerful rhetoric points toward the truth.

Switzerland obviously isn’t neutral. It has engaged in many hostile actions toward Russia over the last three years. In fact, it has engaged in so many of them that it has been formally declared an “unfriendly nation” by Russia as a result of those actions.

The Russian Federation has decided to add Switzerland to its list of “unfriendly nations”, after the country imposed sanctions on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. The move follows a letter from the Russian Foreign Minister, who asked the Swiss government, “Which side are you on?”

In the press conference announcing the sanctions, Swiss President Ignazio Cassis dismissed Russian accusations of a violation of neutrality by saying, “Playing into the hands of an aggressor is not neutral.” Speaking to Blick about the allegation made by Vladimir Putin that western sanctions amounted to a declaration of war on Russia, the president said, “Switzerland is not at war with Russia.”

“Switzerland remains a neutral country,” said law professor Oliver Diggelmann, from the University of Zurich. He noted that a commitment to neutrality did not mean a commitment to inaction and that “the Swiss government recognised that not fully sanctioning such a blatant violation economically would make (Switzerland) an indirect accomplice of the aggressor.”

These word games don’t fool anyone. Cassis’s response is both irrelevant and disingenuous, and is the sort of sophistic rhetoric that doesn’t even merit being taken seriously, let alone at face value.

Doing nothing is not “playing into the hands of an aggressor”. It is, quite literally, NOT doing that. It is, quite literally, doing nothing. If we combine both statements by Cassis and Diggelman, it’s easy to see how inverted the “economic sanctions are neutral” logic is.

  • Neutrality does not mean doing nothing.
  • Doing nothing would make Switzerland an indirect accomplice of Russia
  • Enacting economic sanctions is necessary to avoid becoming an indirect accomplice of Russia
  • Enacting economic sanctions makes Switzerland a direct accomplice of Ukraine, the EU, and the USA
  • Therefore, neutrality requires Switzerland to become a direct accomplice of Ukraine, the EU, and the USA
  • In other words, neutrality requires Switzerland to take sides against Russia.

This isn’t merely incorrect logic, it is inverted sophistry that relies upon an implicit redefinition of the term “neutrality” from “not taking sides” to “not taking the side of the aggressor”. Which means that the “interventionist neutrality” approach literally requires the abandonment of genuine neutrality and the replacement of the word with something that means its exact opposite.

The claim that Switzerland has taken a side is observably true. The claim that Switzerland is still neutral is observably false.

We’ve seen this sort of inversion before. We’ve seen it many, many times. As with the EU’s “democracy” that fights the will of the people and the UK’s “liberalism” that imprisons people for having opinions, this new Swiss “neutrality” is the exact opposite of what everyone historically understood the word to mean. The worldwide observations of the recent Swiss abandonment of neutrality aren’t false, they are 100 percent correct.

The more important point is to recognize that no one from Beijing to Washington cares even a little bit about how Swiss policy or Swiss law formally defines neutrality. All the legalistic word games are irrelevant. Unlike the tango, it doesn’t take two to war. If Russia says you’re at war with them, then guess what? You’re at war with Russia. And as has been made very clear by the SCO summit, if you’re at war with Russia, then you’re at war with China too. Good luck with that.

The small nations of Europe are still stuck in the post-WWII mindset of an invincible USA, but the post-WWII era is over. The USA can’t defeat either Russia nor China anymore, and it would now lose both a land war in Europe and a sea war in the Pacific. At this point, the US military might not even be able to prevent a joint invasion if the Sino-Russian alliance elected to launch a 10-year all-out war of invasion and occupation, although fortunately neither China nor Russia has any interest in doing that.

So while taking sides is foolish, taking the side that is guaranteed to lose, taking the side that has the military-industrial deck stacked even more heavily against it than the one that was stacked against the Axis powers in WWII, is downright insane.

It’s not too late for the Swiss. No one in China or Russia is under any illusion about the Swiss people wanting to go to war with them. They know perfectly well who is responsible for the economic war on them. But that means it’s time to start fixing the diplomatic damage of the last three years, not to double down and make it worse while trying to deny it. It needs to be fixed before it’s too late and no one cares anymore what is said or done.

The Swiss government’s opinion on neutrality is perfect clear. It is absolutely against it.

Bern, 26.6.2024 – The popular initiative ‘Safeguarding Swiss neutrality’ (Neutrality Initiative) seeks to enshrine neutrality and its practical application in Switzerland’s Federal Constitution. At its meeting of 26 June 2024, the Swiss Federal Council decided to recommend that the people and the cantons reject the Neutrality Initiative.

30.5.2025 – The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Council of States soundly rejected the neutrality initiative, reported SRF. The Council of States’ Security Policy Committee also resoundingly rejected the popular initiative in mid-February.

DISCUSS ON SG

Collapse by 2050

A leaked Chinese geopolitical strategy document reveals China’s self-confidence. The document predicts, “The US and Western Europe will collapse due to cultural and demographic conflict by 2050.” China’s leaders increasingly see multiculturalism as “cultural suicide” and believe the west is dying because of it.

—CNN

The Chinese aren’t wrong, although my 2004 estimate for the initial breakup of the USA as a unitary political entity is 2033. The EU has already begun to break apart and the centrifugal forces will continue to grow stronger with the failure of its economic war against Russia. The USA, the UK, and every Western European country are either going to collapse into a violent partition like India circa 1947 or embark upon ethnic cleansing on a larger scale than the Israelis are currently applying to Gaza.

Multiculturalism isn’t just cultural suicide, it is societal suicide, which is arguably worse. The Chinese know this; Xi is not only smart, and not only has the benefit of being advised by Wang Hunin and other brilliant historical philosophers, but is also a student of the greatest political mind of the 20th Century, Lee Kwan Yew. So he knows what we all know, and what Clown World refuses to accept, about multiculturalism.

That’s why Russia is now selling 106 billion cubit tons of natural gas to China every year in lieue of the 160 billion cubic tons it used to sell annually to Western Europe. The Russians, too, know who is going to win in the long run.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Dragon and the Elephant

In its futile attempts to keep control of the West, Clown World has completely botched the two primary geostrategic priorities of the imperial USA.

  • Prevent an effective alliance between Russia and China
  • Keep India on the team

Clown World is clearly cooked at this point, even if it somehow manages to fix its growing number of self-inflicted problems in the USA, the UK, and the EU, which it won’t, because it can’t.

I also note the obvious falsehood of all the clowns shilling the idea that Xi has lost power. That clearly is not the case, as evidenced by the starring role he is playing at what appears to be the most significant global meeting since the Potsdam Conference, the current Tianjin Summit that is the 25th meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that ends today in China.

The day of the Zombie Lion and the Exhausted Eagle is done.

DISCUSS ON SG