55

The Sino-US Trade War – Why China can’t win it

Prof. Anis H. Bajrektarević

Does our history only appear overheated, but is essentially calmly predetermined? Is it directional or conceivable, dialectic and eclectic or cyclical, and therefore cynical? Surely, our history warns. Does it also provide for a hope? Hence, what is in front of us: destiny or future?

One of the biggest (nearly schizophrenic) dilemmas of liberalism, ever since David Hume and Adam Smith, was an insight into reality; whether the world is essentially Hobbesian or Kantian. As postulated, the main task of any liberal state is to enable and maintain wealth of its nation, which of course rests upon wealthy individuals inhabiting the particular state. That imperative brought about another dilemma: if wealthy individual, the state will rob you, but in absence of it, the pauperized masses will mob you. The invisible hand of Smith’s followers have found the satisfactory answer – sovereign debt.

That ‘invention’ meant: relatively strong central government of the state. Instead of popular control through the democratic checks-&-balances mechanism, such a state should be rather heavily indebted. Debt – firstly to local merchants, than to foreigners – is a far more powerful deterrent, as it resides outside the popular check domain. With such a mixed blessing, no empire can easily demonetize its legitimacy, and abandon its hierarchical but invisible and unconstitutional controls. This is how a debtor empire was born. A blessing or totalitarian curse? Let us briefly examine it.

The Soviet Union – much as (the pre-Deng’s) China itself – was far more of a classic continental military empire (overtly brutal; rigid, authoritative, anti-individual, apparent, secretive), while the US was more a financial-trading empire (covertly coercive; hierarchical, yet asocial, exploitive, pervasive, polarizing). On opposite sides of the globe and cognition, to each other they remained enigmatic, mysterious and incalculable: Bear of permafrost vs. Fish of the warm seas. Sparta vs. Athens. Rome vs. Phoenicia… However, common for the both was a super-appetite for omnipresence. Along with the price to pay for it.

Consequently, the Soviets went bankrupt by mid 1980s – they cracked under its own weight, imperially overstretched. So did the Americans – the ‘white man burden’ fractured them already by the Vietnam war, with the Nixon shock only officializing it. However, the US imperium managed to survive and to outlive the Soviets. How? The United States, with its financial capital (or an outfoxing illusion of it), evolved into a debtor empire through the Wall Street guaranties. Titanium-made Sputnik vs. gold mine of printed-paper… Nothing epitomizes this better than the words of the longest serving US Federal Reserve’s boss, Alan Greenspan, who famously said to then French President Jacques Chirac: “True, the dollar is our currency, but your problem”. Hegemony vs. hegemoney.

House of Cards

Conventional economic theory teaches us that money is a universal equivalent to all goods. Historically, currencies were a space and time-related, to say locality-dependent. However, like no currency ever before, the US dollar became – past the WWII – the universal equivalent to all other moneys of the world. According to history of currencies, the core component of the non-precious metals money is a so-called promissory note – intangible belief that, by any given point of future, a particular shiny paper (self-styled as money) will be smoothly exchanged for real goods.

Thus, roughly speaking, money is nothing else but a civilizational construct about imagined/projected tomorrow – that the next day (which nobody has ever seen in the history of humankind, but everybody operates with) definitelly comes (i), and that this tomorrow will certainly be a better day then our yesterday or even our today (ii).

This and similar types of social contracts (horizontal and vertical) over the collective constructs hold society together as much as its economy keeps it alive and evolving. Hence, it is money that powers economy, but our blind faith in (constructed) tomorrows and its alleged certainty is what empowers money.

Clearly, the universal equivalent of all equivalents – the US dollar – follows the same pattern: Strong and widely accepted promise. What does the US dollar promise when there is no gold cover attached to it ever since the time of Nixon shock of 1971?

Pentagon promises that the oceanic sea lines will remain opened (read: controlled by the US Navy), pathways unhindered, and that the most traded world’s commodity – oil, will be delivered. So, it is not a crude or its delivery what is a cover to the US dollar – it is a promise that oil of tomorrow will be deliverable. That is a real might of the US dollar, which in return finances Pentagon’s massive expenditures and shoulders its supremacy.

Admired and feared, Pentagon further fans our planetary belief in tomorrow’s deliverability – if we only keep our faith in dollar (and hydrocarbons’ energized economy), and so on and on in perpetuated circle of mutual reinforcements.

These two pillars of the US might from the East coast (the US Treasury/Wall Street and Pentagon) together with the two pillars of the West coast – both financed by the US dollar and spread through the open sea-lanes (Silicone Valley and Hollywood), are an essence of the US posture.

This very nature of power explains why the Americans have missed to take our mankind into completely other direction; towards the non-confrontational, decarbonized, de-monetized/de-financialized and de-psychologized, the self-realizing and green humankind. In short, to turn history into a moral success story. They had such a chance when, past the Gorbachev’s unconditional surrender of the Soviet bloc, and the Deng’s Copernicus-shift of China, the US – unconstrained as a lonely superpower – solely dictated terms of reference; our common destiny and direction/s to our future/s.

Winner is rarely a game-changer

Sadly enough, that was not the first missed opportunity for the US to soften and delay its forthcoming, imminent multidimensional imperial retreat. The very epilogue of the WWII meant a full security guaranty for the US: Geo-economically – 54% of anything manufactured in the world was carrying the Made in USA label, and geostrategically – the US had uninterruptedly enjoyed nearly a decade of the ‘nuclear monopoly’.

Up to this very day, the US scores the biggest number of N-tests conducted, the largest stockpile of nuclear weaponry, and it represents the only power ever deploying this ‘ultimate weapon’ on other nation. To complete the irony, Americans enjoy geographic advantage like no other empire before. Save the US, as Ikenberry notes: “…every major power in the world lives in a crowded geopolitical neighborhood where shifts in power routinely provoke counterbalancing”.

Look the map, at Russia or China and their packed surroundings. The US is blessed with neighboring oceans – all that should harbor tranquility, peace and prosperity, foresightedness.

Why the lonely might, an empire by invitation did not evolve into empire of relaxation, a generator of harmony? Why does it hold (extra-judicially) captive more political prisoners on Cuban soil than the badmouthed Cuban regime has ever had? Why does it remain obsessed with armament for at home and abroad? What are we talking about here – the inadequate intensity of our confrontational push or about the false course of our civilizational direction?

Indeed, no successful and enduring empire does merely rely on coercion, be it abroad or at home. However, unable to escape its inner logics and deeply-rooted appeal of confrontational nostalgia, the prevailing archrival is only a winner, rarely a game-changer.

To sum up; After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Americans accelerated expansion while waiting for (real or imagined) adversaries to further decline, ‘liberalize’ and bandwagon behind the US. Expansion is the path to security dictatum only exacerbated the problems afflicting the Pax Americana.

That is how the capability of the US to maintain its order started to erode faster than the capacity of its opponents to challenge it. A classical imperial self-entrapment!

And the repeated failure to notice and recalibrate its imperial retreat brought the painful hangovers to Washington by the last presidential elections. Inability to manage the rising costs of sustaining the imperial order only increased the domestic popular revolt and political pressure to abandon its ‘mission’ altogether. Perfectly hitting the target to miss everything else…

*

When the Soviets lost their own indigenous ideological matrix and maverick confrontational stance, and when the US dominated West missed to triumph although winning the Cold War, how to expect from the imitator to score the lasting moral or even a momentary economic victory?

Neither more confrontation and more carbons nor more weaponized trade and traded weapons will save our day. It failed in past, it will fail again any given day.

Interestingly, China opposed the I World, left the II in rift, and ever since Bandung of 1955 it neither won nor joined the III Way. Today, many see it as a main contestant. But, where is a lasting success?

Greening international relations along with greening of economy (geopolitical and environmental understanding, de-acidification and relaxation) is the only way out. Historically, no global leader has ever emerged from a shaky and distrustful neighborhood, or by offering little bit more of the same in lieu of an innovative technological advancement. Ergo, it all starts from within, from at home. Without support from a home base, there is no game changer. China’s home is Asia.

Hence, it is not only a new, non-imitative, turn of technology what is needed. Without truly and sincerely embracing mechanisms such as the NaM, ASEAN and SAARC (eventually even the OSCE) and the main champions of multilateralism in Asia, those being India Indonesia and Japan first of all, China has no future of what is planetary awaited – the third force, a game-changer, lasting and trusted global leader.

Professor Anis H. Bajrektarević is chairperson and professor in international law and global political studies, Vienna, Austria. He has authored six books (for American and European publishers) and numerous articles on, mainly, geopolitics energy and technology. For the past decades, he has over 1,200 hours of teaching on the subject International Law and Relations (including lecturing in both Kiev and Moscow universities and Diplomatic Academy). He is editor of the NY-based GHIR (Geopolitics, History and Intl. Relations) journal, and editorial board member of several similar specialized magazines on three continents. His 7th book, From WWI to www. – Europe and the World 1918-2018 was to released in December.
avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
denk
Reader
denk

antonym
‘China builds “things”. Nazi Germany also build things, like autobahns and VWs. Stalin was another ruthless industrialist. ‘

Here’s the full version,
China the builder for the wolrd vs murkka the destroyer.

Is that clear enough for you, genius ?

Quasimodo
Reader
Quasimodo

And April Fool’s day to you too Off Guardian.

51lv3r5urf3r
Reader
51lv3r5urf3r

The writer should write this article in his own language. He sounds incoherent in English.

Stonky
Reader
Stonky

Unfortunate but true. It should have been translated by a native speaker, or translated then edited by a native speaker who knows what Anis is talking about.

Lateral Thinking
Reader
Lateral Thinking

The US is a behemoth bully that is obstructionist and interventionist, very unfit for dialogue and co-operation.

Can’t a trade model be successful while totally ignoring the US? (i.e. pretending the US doesn’t exist)

Wilmers31
Reader
Wilmers31

I think so. The article forgets that the size of your market is the decisive factor for success. That comes close to 2 billion with China – without India.

Where America’s ideology has been followed most closely. in Britain, this evolves as a headline: “Teachers volunteer for 7,000 Pounds paycut to save colleagues jobs”. This is as perfidious as it gets, cut education funding to encourage the little guys to chip more in while spending money on Trident and F-35s.

This is not a good road, although we cannot say where it will lead. People think of China replacing the US as world leader. We have quite enough of world leaders leading us by the nose, so we might look at that multi-polar world, if we cannot work it out by ourselves.

As long as it is a Chinese company building a giant mosque in Algeria and not Bechtel, the US is not winning their trade war.

Seamus Padraig
Reader
Seamus Padraig

Based on the title, I read to the end of the article expecting to find some discussion of the looming US/China trade war, but I didn’t see it anywhere. Do I need my eyes checked?

Fillipo Uno
Reader
Fillipo Uno

I like Lee’s call out. Reading this article gave me the validity of my observations that the bulk of the academia are almost always hiding behind a pile of $5 words and dish out thousands of words and sentences in essays and publications to justify their pay, while only a handful of them are actually earning their keep, and sadly it’s the other bulk of the crowd, the jesters who takes the cake when nobody’s watching.
This prof made only 1 single observation worth the dime, that the expansion of the American empire went unchecked after the USSR, and is now facing reckoning, and, the rest of what he wrote is just a chronicle of gibberish between him and the tooth fairy he had reunited with over a cup of Chamomile tea.

John
Reader
John

The minute this fucker mentioned Deng as some kind of enlightened soul was the moment I tuned out

bevin
Reader
bevin

It is hard to decide whether the peculiar and marginally comprehensible language, which obscures the banality of a rehearsal of the conventional wisdom of the imperialists, is a good thing, in that it deters readers from swallowing the ideology. Or a bad thing because it masks the utterly commonplace arguments behind the hobbledy-fook of the pan Atlantic Academy. Whose motto is “Have rationalisations-will supply.” (Wholesale terms available.)

Archie1954
Reader
Archie1954

And you talk about marginally comprehensible?

Some Random Passer-by
Reader
Some Random Passer-by

I didn’t enjoy my time in the UK military, and have spent many years breaking my “programming”.

There is one thing I won’t forget though.

“Bullshit baffles brains”

Wilmers31
Reader
Wilmers31

The mentioning of Hollywood as a pillar is definitely BS.

Hollywood is very much influenced by Chinese money. Chinese investors usually have script approval and use it, too, because it’s about suitability for the Chinese market. If he hasn’t noticed that development (maybe 3/4 years old), what else has he missed? Chinese like to operate from behind a curtain, Anglos like making lots of noise.

George Cornell
Reader
George Cornell

Could you name the top 100 films presenting China in a good light? A mixed light? Any light? Any film?
I see not a shred of evidence Hollywood is influenced by the Chinese, but then I prefer foreign films anyway. Just tired of shit, plots, shit acting, shit dialogue and shit propaganda.

Jen
Reader
Jen

“… Without truly and sincerely embracing mechanisms such as the NaM, ASEAN and SAARC (eventually even the OSCE) and the main champions of multilateralism in Asia, those being India Indonesia and Japan first of all, China has no future of what is planetary awaited – the third force, a game-changer, lasting and trusted global leader.”

Quite why China should “embrace” mechanisms such as SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) or ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) when that country has not much in common in the way of history, culture or economic development with the Indian subcontinent or with Southeast Asian countries (apart from Chinese traders and workers who settled in those countries of their own accord or were transported there by British colonialists), is a puzzle that Professor Bajrektarovich should have explained but doesn’t. Would SAARC and ASEAN have China as a member anyway? Some member nations might object to welcoming China as a member because they see China as a competitor in trade or as a hostile neighbour.

How on earth are India, Indonesia and Japan champions of “multilateralism”? Not very many Asian countries see Japan as a good partner in pursuing multilateral goals because of its own past colonial / imperial history and its politicians’ insistence on visiting the Yasukuni shrine to honour Japanese war dead listed there, including over 1,000 WWII war criminals.

The author also ignores China’s efforts in forming alliances and projects such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation for political, economic and security reasons. India, Pakistan, Russia and most Central Asian countries are members. I am guessing this omission may not be purely accidental, since this organisation seems to have been China’s idea.

In other words, if China doesn’t join other significant regional Asian organisations (that are actually out of China’s economic and political sphere) that would tell the Chinese where to shove their money, then China is not a good team player.

Godfree Roberts
Reader
Godfree Roberts

The main prize in China’s fight for world leadership is Europe: its inclusion in the BRI would sideline the United States. Here’s the current state of play:

Despite American opposition, Nordstream II will connect Germany and Russia this year.

NATO member Turkey ordered Russian air defenses that will render the USAF impotent.

Trains between China and Europe now leave hourly, 24×7.

Luxembourg, Europe’s wealth capital, joins China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

All European telecoms will use Huawei gear and some, like Monaco, will install nothing else.

Huawei’s revenue jumped 36% in 1Q ’19, on its way to US$125 billion. Reuters.

G7 nation Italy joined BRI and contributed two ports to China’s existing portfolio of 13 EU ports.

Airbus offered build A330s entirely in China.

Rolls Royce offered to build jet engines in China.

China invested nine time more in Europe than in the US in 2018.

Growth since 2008. China: 139%. US 34%. EU -2%.

“The Chinese Belt and Road initiative is an important project which European states would be glad to join. We Europeans want to play an active part and that must lead to certain reciprocity and we are still wrangling over that a bit,” said Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Eric Blair
Reader

China builds things and creates mutually beneficial partnerships with other nations. It has a positive vision of the future. The US has no vision that doesn’t involve mass killing, can’t keep its own infrastructure in working order or provide health care and basic services for its people but it CAN spend trillions on its cherished military. It places its self-created foes under economic siege and periodically sends its organized murder machine to foment death, mayhem and chaos in select weaker nations. It offers nothing to its lackey and satrap “partners” but threats and coercion. It is a sick, decadent and decaying empire that spreads death, chaos and bad vibes while at the same time it devours itself at a record pace.

Even the likes of Merkel and Macron are still smart enough to know which way the wind is blowing. The leaders of the UK, Canada and Australia are unfortunately too thick to notice the putrid stench of decay that emanates from their imperial master’s rancid, gangrenous asshole and they will say “yes!”, “amen!” and “of course Uncle Sam!” until the bitter end. I just hope the lunatics running the dying empire can somehow be stopped before they unleash a nuclear war on the world. They will never cede power willingly and if they can’t be the world’s one and only hegemonic state, they will choose self-immolation and try to take the world down with them.

Peter
Reader
Peter

Cant wait for the UK to be the US arsehole sitting off the Eurpoean coast. All those missiles the US intends to aim at Europe and Europe to aim at the UK should really jolly things up for you folks. You will fall into the caring oh so effing caring arms of Uncle Sambo. Eat their glyphosate ridden food. Eat their irradiated meats and fruits. Pay their type of medical bills. A country of mugs is the UK.

Dont get me wrong. I think the EU is a monster. I think Macron is the friggin antichrist. Merkel a whore. Getting out would be good but the only reason it is happening is so the UK can be used to soak up missiles in the war the US intends to wage.

ark
Reader
ark

The only problem with that is the UK is already the US arsehole (and the Zionist arsehole.) It couldn’t get any worse than it is already.

Some Random Passer-by
Reader
Some Random Passer-by

One Sarmat missile and the UK is toast.

The Russians have played the long game, and so have the Chinese.

It’s almost like they knew what would happen…

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/11/peace-behind-me-war-in-front-of-me.html?m=1

The yanks love themselves a war, and yet their research shows blue is going to get a hiding.

We shall see soon enough, 25 years at most.

Slava
Reader
Slava

This article does not make any sense.

China could not care less what planet awaits. It cares only of it’s own interests, and it does it well.

China can’t win a trade war? It already did. As Italy and France confirmed this week. UK would love to join the BRI party but thanks to Gavin the village idiot Williamson was left behind.

US does sweet nothing to facilitate oil trade, quite the opposite, it does all it can to block or disrupt alternative oil and gas supplies – Lybia, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, Syria, the list goes on. It won’t be long till a significant part of oil trade is conducted in other currencies, reducing demand for this soon to be worthless US notes .

Travel to China to see how it is “loosing ” a trade war. Unprecedented scale of development and progress everywhere. High speed railways up and running while we can’t complete a 10 mile cross rail! Never mind HS2 which will not be completed in our lifetime. Unless China buys it like Manchester Airport and then builds it in 5 years.

All US can do now is try to beg for some crumbs (trade deals) from China, but for this they must surrender unconditionally. Until then China will be buying Airbus planes (until it develops its own which will be very soon now) and invest in Europe, Africa, and Asia to the expense of US and Australia (and UK as mentioned above).

James
Reader
James

From the very first sentence the article is mere word-compost. Why is OG publishing this stuff?

Antonym
Reader
Antonym

US vs China = frying pan vs fire.
Xi Jinping is a control freak and he doesn’t stop at any borders: his underlings just keep finding old maps with wider lines. Israeli expansion is peanuts compared to its Chinese counterpart but the Western Left keeps its eyes wide shut out of admiration for these “underdog communists”, as if it is still 1960.

denk
Reader
denk

China’s rail way mileage is larger than the world combined,
Murkka’s ‘defense’ spending is larger than the next
15 big spenders combined.

China’s oversea military base = 1
murkka’s = 200

murkka’s has attacked /invaded 300 countries since ww2,
China 0

murkka’s has brought down 100’s of democratically elected givn since ww2,
China 0

murkka has committed hundreds of state terrorism since ww2,
China 0

murkka has violated hundreds of UN resolutions since ww2,
China 0

China has lifted 700m people outta povery ,
murkka is deteriotating into a third world shit hole.

When the Chinese congress convene a meeting, its always about the next five years plan to improve the
people’s well being.

When the murkka’s CON-gress convene a meeting,
you bet some countries some where are gonna get
screwed big time.

Off hand these are the stuffs that come to mind, but its
just the Tip of an iceberg.

overall, its China 0 vs murkka 300

So the professor is right, murkka wins hands down,
no contest,.

I say,
WTF with this China = murkka B.S. ,
Genius ?

P.S.
Im being charitable here, had I included pre ww2 era right up to the
sinking of Maine, the picture would be much uglier.

Some of the figures might not be exact, like the no of murkka bases,
wars…give it a plus, minus tens perhaps,
but you get the drift.

denk
Reader
denk

somebody down vote me but has no balls to debate.

what a coward !

Frankly Speaking
Reader
Frankly Speaking

I guess it is impossible to debate with someone who makes up “facts” of their own and ignores real facts.
For just one example, there aren’t even 300 countries on the whole planet yet “Murkka” has invaded every single one.
It would be pointless to discuss anything further with you and you’d probably start hurling insults at them.

denk
Reader
denk

my comment is in reply to Antonym the genius,

mark
Reader
mark

China has never invaded or colonised anybody else.
It has always been preoccupied with running its own huge country.
It trades with the rest of the world on a mutually beneficial basis, building infrastructure and businesses western countries never bothered to do in centuries of brutal genocide, slavery and imperialist exploitation.
Without invading and bombing other countries, slaughtering and starving hundreds of millions, strangling other countries economically, overthrowing governments and murdering elected leaders, and generally behaving like Nazi Germany on steroids.
China builds things.
Not a bad record.
America bombs things.
That’s the crucial difference.
Most people prefer building things to bombing things.

Paul
Reader
Paul

Well put. There is an assumption that is quite well spread, even here, that ‘of course’ China wants to conquer the World and ‘Europe’ is the first to fall. Chinese hegemony will come as a result of its enormous industrial power just as it did for the British and Americans in their day. It consciously rejects Imperialism. They stand by Maduro in Venezuela. Communism works. But failing Empires desperately need foes who are so evil they have to be combated in all ways possible. The Russian threat is not what it was with brand new Ukraine falling apart and a very reasonable Mr. Putin cutting the cards with tall the Middle East States, including Israel. The Salisbury farce made the Russian threat, a favourite for over 200 years years, seem slightly ludicrous even funny. So the Chinese can fulfil the Bogeyman requirement, you can be sure they understand that!

Antonym
Reader
Antonym

China builds “things”. Nazi Germany also build things, like autobahns and VWs. Stalin was another ruthless industrialist. The US and UK used to build things but not much anymore. They will be soon stuck with Chinese telecom, nuclear energy and AI.

China has never invaded or colonized anybody else: straight from the little Red Book. You can’t check with the Uyghurs because most are in camps. Manchurians? gone. Hongkong’s identity: eroding. Taiwan next, already can’t have embassies anywhere. Miraculous disappearances.

Islam also never colonized, just ask Bangladesh or Nigeria. Winged horses can hop much further than Jerusalem.

The worst colonizer on Earth is Israel: took all of 200 km2.

Gospel of mark, 13:0

JohnG
Reader
JohnG

Your hasbara is childish. Like all zionists, you are a narcissistic, racist hypocrite.

mark
Reader
mark

And the US colony, 3,000,000 sq mi. And Canada, 3,500,000 sq mi. And the UK, 100,000 sq mi. And France, 200.000 sq mi. Ans Australia, 3,000,000 sq mi. All parts of the far flung Zionist Empire.

Antonym
Reader
Antonym

Mars, the Moon?

mark
Reader
mark

Why not? The Orange Baboon will jump up to recognise Zionist sovereignty over both places as soon as he gets his orders through from Adelson and Nitwityahoo.

George Cornell
Reader
George Cornell

Israel has only had a few years.

Paul
Reader
Paul

China like many countries has a problem with Muslim populations taking up jihad. Currently 7000 Chinese fighters still hold a town in Souhern Idlip refusing to talk with anybody. They have a reputation among Syrians as breing the most vicious of all the jihadi militias – which is saying something! The Chinese have an anti Jihad programme which is not dissimilar to Britains ‘Prevent’ which seeks to identify possible extremists and re-educate them. It is highly unlikely that 7 million Chinese Muslims are held in camps as the CIA postulated last year. It was ‘possible’ they said and on the back of that a myth was born. Camps holding 7 million would be visible from space and somebody somewhere would surely come forward with evidence if it existed? But it’s a great story about Asiastic cruelty so no doubt it will be kept alive.

Ramdan
Reader
Ramdan

So….what’s your point???

George Cornell
Reader
George Cornell

The main difference is that China has been China for thousands of years.

Ramdan
Reader
Ramdan

An interesting note, the author points that:

“that this tomorrow will certainly be a better day then our yesterday or even our today (ii).”

This is, in all regards, the greatest fantasies of all. If the author, and mankind (according to him) really believes that, then it is clear why minkind has not evolved an inch since “discovering” fire.

Ramdan
Reader
Ramdan

The author is clearly biased by his own prejudices which he takes as reality. The article frames the discussion within a dichotomy as it those were factual divisions and only available options. Again, the author pretends the world IS what HE THINKS IT IS. A mind trap.

An interesting note, the author points that:

<>

This is, in all regards, the greatest fantasies of all. If the author, and mankind (according to him) really believes that, then it is clear why minkind has not evolved an inch since “discovering” fire.

Peter
Reader
Peter

https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/03/who-created-nato-arrows-point-to-uk-not-u-s/

How is everyone on the soon to be created UK glass bowl exhibit.? Like seeing that jerk Williamson flounce around maligning Russia all day and night do we.? Consider the UK up to the task of taking on the military might of Russia you think.?

Beat the Nazis did ya.?

1500 dead in the so called battle of Britian. A battle was it.? Or was it a very very minor skirmish.? A sort of jumped up pub brawl more the like.

Battle of Britian my fat arse.

Some Random Passer-by
Reader
Some Random Passer-by

Caspian sea monster showed that if we had been invaded during the reign of the USSR, we’d have fallen in hours to a few days at most (so hours then…)

I think secretly, the powers that be knew this 40-50 years ago, which is why British assets have been sold off to whoever wanted them.

Will be nice to get a change in overlords if we don’t get rubbed off the face of the planet, but given our track record, one large missile would be the better option for Britain.

BigB
Reader
BigB

“China has no future of what is planetary awaited – the third force, a game-changer, lasting and trusted global leader.”

I’m not sure what the means, but I am a bit creeped out by it, nonetheless.

There is only one force in economics – alongside debt – and that is entropy. Given the articles pseudo-green conclusions, I’m surprised there is no mention of EROI. Anyone that is doing economics without thermodynamics: is not doing economics. That is why we are in this mess.

You can’t win.
You can’t break even.
You can’t quit the game.
You can pretend it is not happening …but

You can’t win,,,

[You can break even – sort of …with living systems. But that is a game changer we have yet to understand or account for].

Francis Lee
Reader
Francis Lee

Such verbosity! As Benjamin Disraeli once said of a Parliamentary opponent – he was: ”A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself.”

I really don’t understand what the honourable gentlemen is actually trying to say. Any ideas?

Aussie battler
Reader
Aussie battler

He is a western elitist who believes his own bullshit,
China will prove the racist wrong on all counts.

George Cornell
Reader
George Cornell

“His agony in trying to make himself understood was exceeded only by the agony of those trying to understand him”.

Loverat
Reader
Loverat

For the benefit of readers who might not be very familiar with the subject (and I freely admit to being one) what is statistically flawed, innacurate or gibberish?. If you challenge the content or narrative it is often helpful to elaborate.