Niger - Blinken, the one with blinkers

 Blinken, the one with blinkers, is warning Wagner group not to take advantage of the situation in Niger. What advantage is he talking about if Wagner group had been invited by the Niger junta to help protect the regime?

Isn't what the USA did in Taiwan a matter of taking advantage as well? Taiwan is an internal matter for China to settle, and what is the USA doing sticking its dirty fingers into it?

They hypocrisy of the USA knows no bounds. India's treatment of minority religious groups is considered an internal matter, while the Xinjiang issue is an international matter. What is the difference? The USA loves the Muslim Uyghurs more than the Muslims in India? It that the reality? But the USA is sanctioning products made by Uyghurs in Xinjiang? What is its real position and ulterior motive? To demonise China of course!

Over to Pakistan, where the USA supported stooge now holds power. The USA also considers Pakistan's present political issue as an internal matter, knowing that the Pakistan stooge Government, which it supported, holds the upper hand. Imran Khan was deposed in a coup, the same as in Niger. What is the difference between what happened in Pakistan and in Niger. The USA supported the coup leaders in Pakistan, but is against the coup leaders in Niger, totally not based on principles.

As a superpower, the USA should be consistent with its policies, not based on whimsical decisions solely based on interest and their fake 'Rules based order' horseshit.

Anonymous

When China farts, the Americans would call it provocation or aggression

 I am going to say that eventually when Chinese in China farts, the USA will go hysterical and calls it provocation as well.

The USA claims it upholds the believe in and is protecting the 'Freedom of Navigation' of the seas, but does not practice what it preaches. Why can't Russia and China hold naval exercises in International Waters near Alaska? Every drill conducted by Russia and China is hype up as a threat, even on their doorsteps.

Brian Berletic puts it in perfect perspective, on The New Atlas site, that the USA warns South East Asian countries of Chinese coercion, then coerces South East Asian countries to follow its anti-China agenda. If ASEAN fails to realise the USA hypocrisy, it speaks volumes of the kind of leadership leading the bloc.

ASEAN depends on China more than the USA and moreover, during its five thousand years of history, did China invaded any ASEAN country? Compare that to the Anglo Saxon White's evil deeds - Britain colonising India, Holland (The Dutch) colonising Indonesia, Spain colonising the Philippines and later coming under the USA, Portugal colonising Malacca and later came the Brits taking control of the whole of Peninsula Malaysia and Singapore, and France colonising Indo-China. All these are in recorded history. Which country in ASEAN has never tasted Western colonialism? Which country in ASEAN has China ever colonised or exerted its rule over? So ASEAN needs to tread carefully.

In retrospect, it was the Anglo Saxon Whites, together with Japan, under the Eight Nations Alliance, that even wanted to colonise China during the 1900's. That is why Asian countries must be extremely wary of Japan, the 'Asian Pariah' that had always colluded with the Whites to control the region. This was apparently clear with their alliance with Germany and Italy to form the Axis Power, the only Asian country selling out to the Whites. Today, it is still siding with the Whites in the hope of ruling China, their grand plan during WW2. That is a hallucination of epic proportions in today's context.

Yes, Russia and China, perhaps roping in Iran, could hold a naval exercise in International Waters off the Gulf of Mexico and that would be timely. Throw in a 'rest and recreation' stopover in Cuba, like what the USA does in many parts of the world. What is wrong with that?

Anonymous

India Furious With Rating Firms Giving It Insulting BBB-minus Rating at Bottom of Investment Grade

An Indian official has once again expressed outrage over poor Indian investment grading by the Fitch, S&P and Moody's sovereign global rating agencies.

Sanjeev Sanyal, Member of the EAC to the Prime Minister pleaded that India should be rated at least one or two grades higher than what it is at present by global rating agencies.

India just about makes it past the investment grade in the ratings of the agencies, which is "utterly absurd", PTI quoted Sanyal as saying on Monday.

"In terms of sovereign ratings, if India was fairly rated, it should be at least one, if not two grades higher. There is no reason for India to be at the bottom of the investment grade," Sanyal said of his own country.

Fitch has retained its sovereign rating for India at the lowest investment grade of 'BBB-' for more than 16 years now. In June 2022, Fitch revised up its outlook for India's long-term foreign currency issuer default rating (IDR) to 'stable,' from 'negative,' after a gap of two years.

S&P and Moody's have also maintained such ratings for India at the same level - 'BBB-' and 'BAA3', respectively - with a 'stable' outlook.

Sanyal said frameworks of the rating agencies should be questioned, and India should realise that those can be replaced with "ease". But the rating agencies had stood their ground.

Indian officials have often spoken out against the rating rationale of agencies based out of the West and have regularly held meetings with said firms in a futile bid to push for an upgrade. Earlier this year, senior officials led by chief economic advisor V Anantha Nageswaran reportedly held a meeting with Fitch executives.

In their latest assessments, global rating agencies have acknowledged India's robust growth outlook compared to peers and still-resilient external finances. However, they have also flagged "weak public finances," reflected in high deficits and debt relative to peers.

Anonymous

U.S. re-engagement with China reflects confusion of priorities

 In the shadow of the protracted conflict in Ukraine, the administration of U.S. President Joe Biden has made an inconspicuous but substantial shift in its policy toward China.

An examination of recent trips by several cabinet members suggests the administration is having trouble formulating a consistent global security strategy.

It is evident that the Biden administration decided it was necessary to diffuse the tensions that escalated in February when the U.S. Air Force shot down an alleged Chinese reconnaissance balloon that had traversed the continental U.S.

It may be that Washington felt taking a low-key diplomatic approach would help in pressing China not to cooperate with Russia's war effort in Ukraine. But given growing signs that the war still has a long way to run, and that it will continue to require significant fiscal and military resources, it seems the U.S. has decided now to seek to secure at least China's benevolent neutrality in relation to the confrontation with Moscow.

In May, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan met in Vienna with Chinese Politburo member Wang Yi, who last month returned to role of foreign minister, for some 10 hours of "candid, in-depth, substantive and constructive discussions," in the words of a senior administration spokesperson. In June, Secretary of State Antony Blinken met in Beijing with Wang and Chinese President Xi Jinping for another five hours of "candid and constructive" talks.

The atmosphere of the Beijing talks was captured symbolically in much-circulated photographs in which Xi is seated at the head of a meeting table, while Blinken is seated on the side of the table, positioned as a dutiful listener.

America's top diplomat was compelled to go to Beijing and negotiate from a position of weakness due to the strategic circumstances that Washington faces. In short, the lavish military aid that Washington has provided to Kyiv to sustain its fight against Russia has severely undermined U.S. military preparedness.

During the Cold War, U.S. military hegemony presupposed Washington's possession of sufficient military prowess to simultaneously dominate the three geostrategically vital regions of Western Europe, the Middle East and Northeast Asia. In effect, this meant a capability for full-power projection for two concurrent major regional conflicts while holding position in a limited regional conflict on a third front.

 Once the Cold War was over, the U.S. collected a peace dividend by cutting its defense budget, then focusing on counterinsurgency operations for its global war on terrorism. Across the administrations of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, the U.S. military went from being able to fight two and a half regional wars at a time, to two, then one and a half, and finally only one. "America is not the world's policeman," Obama said in 2013.

China and Russia, Washington's great-power competitors, continued meanwhile to invest in high-end arms. But U.S. capacity to fight a regional war has focused on deterring and potentially defeating armed aggression by China, America's only coequal. With less military power to deploy, the U.S. has had to make maximum use of other tools, including diplomatic, economic and intelligence instruments.

Now the war in Ukraine is consuming vast amounts of U.S. military and financial resources, reflecting a grand misordering of priorities. Most probably, it will take at least five years to rebuild the necessary munition stocks and logistics for a potential major regional conflict with China over Taiwan.

No wonder the Biden administration is seeking to strike a detente with China. The administration has to buy time by reorienting from full-fledged confrontation to re-engagement and de-risking.

But Washington's about-face constitutes an act of appeasement, as underscored by the fact that Beijing has not pulled back from any of its aggressive provocations. Instead, it has continued to launch cyberattacks, menace Taiwan and restrict exports of strategic minerals.

To make matters worse, the Biden administration's Middle East policy is straying wildly. Iran's uranium enrichment is approaching the weapon's grade level of more than 90%. This will give Israel a strong incentive to launch a preemptive strike, as it did previously in Iraq and Syria.

In May, Sullivan said the Biden administration would endorse Israel's "freedom of military action." This stance risks fueling a regionwide war that would inevitably draw in the U.S.

The U.S. badly needs to sit back and take stock of the overall global situation. Ukraine should not be the primary determinant of U.S. foreign and security policy. The Biden administration should recover a sense of prudential realism and shift more attention to Taiwan and Iran while it still has some room to maneuver.

.Would Beijing bite the USA's desire to strike a detente with China? The USA had been saying one thing but doing the exact opposite many a time, and China knows perfectly well that the USA cannot be trusted and is never to be trusted.

Once the USA gets back on its footing of rebuilding its depleted military stockpile and improving its financial resources after the Ukraine War, it will certainly revert to its old stance of dictating and still expecting China to be playing second fiddle to its interest. Those neo-Cons in the establishment will make sure the same old anti-China stance continues to be played according to the their playbook, whoever sits in the White House. Staying on as the unipolar superpower is always in its mindset, and it will never be content to live with being second or even sharing the superpower title in a multipolar world.

For all intents and purposes, China and Russia are perfectly serious in de-dollarisation, having sold the idea to so many Global South countries, that going back to the old days of further succumbing to probable sanctions under the US$ hegemony once again, will be a great misfortune and let down to the other BRICS countries, not to mention China losing its credibility. That is unlikely to happen.

With Taiwan's return to China in the crosshairs of USA/China relations, and the USA continuing to use Taiwan as a pawn to antagonise China on and off, the issues between China and USA will be difficult to resolve.

Anonymous

Asian prophet on regional issues - Part 1

 

15  minutes of prophecies starting with Australia, to open up or become the poor white trash. Australia had done well, but starting to close up to China and if it continues this road, would fulfill the prophecy of become the white trash of Asia. Asia will become the new tech hub led by China and India. In 1967 he talked about the rise of China and anything Singapore can do, China can do better. His assessment of the potential of Xi Jinping, Japan, Vietnam, India with individual talents bogged down by bureaucracy and culture, etc, etc, etc. Finally, he predicted that he would become a villain after his death. This is also coming true. Every little politician thinks it is alright to criticise and attack him, some to the point that he is stupid and can be easily conned even in legal matters., like his will.