• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

Definitely not a fan of Poilievre (my wife calls him Polyester) and felt that Harper was too power hungry and had been in power too long.

I know many here will disagree with me on this but I feel that much (but not all) of what Justin did regarding the pandemic was justified and that history will judge him rather kindly in that area. Having said that, this whole business with China in itself should be enough to make Canadians demand for him to step down. I think I’d rather see Freeland as PM (but definitely not Joli). Other than her, I don’t think Justin has done much in terms of succession planning for his party and can’t think of many other suitable candidates at this point in time.

Erin O’Toole had a tough job trying to appease many of the fringe groups in his party but I think he was basically a decent person and probably would have made this country a better place if he had survived the party politics and had become PM. I think that, with his military background, he would have placed more emphasis on national defence. Unfortunately he didn’t survive the cutthroat politics that exists today.

I just hope that Trudeau decides to leave of his own volition or his party should force it on him. Otherwise let the voters eventually decimate the Liberal party. It’s just not good for any political party to be in power for too long. As the old saying goes, familiarity breeds contempt. And thanks to China’s relationship with the Liberals, there’s a lot for Canadians to be contemptuous about.


I was wondering how long it would take the mainstream media to start having suspicions about pretty boy Justin. I still think that HE THINKS he’s doing the right thing (even though he’s not) for the country. True patriotism is probably something that makes him nervous. Mind you, he has no problem posing and interacting with drag queens or appearing in a skit with a black face (okay, okay he was younger then), but I think he would probably be ashamed to say he would really and truly be willing to fight for the country that he loves.

I say Justin is not a patriotic Canadian. Why? Because to do so is in itself un-patriotic…or at least very unfashionable. And we all know how fashionable and cute Justin is. Problem is, there are too many people (especially young people) like him who enable him to stay in his comfort zone. He came to us initially with a lot of charisma, which can serve a politician well in winning the hearts and minds of the general public. To be fair, he has done some things right…most politics usually do.

But on the basis of what he has allowed China to do and to get by with, and for so long, that is absolutely inexcusable and unforgivable. And in terms of seriousness, it’s about as high up on the seriousness scale as you can get.

I just hope that, in the next election, the voters throw his bum and his fancy socks out of office. Or possibly he could be removed from office even sooner if, say, the government were defeated based on a non-confidence motion and the LPC itself lost their confidence in him as party leader. Probably unlikely but not impossible, especially if the NDP were to withdraw their promised support.

I’m in St James. Transcona is well - Transcona
This is very true .
 
The very fact that the liberal party has not told him to leave is evidence that they should be booted to the curb. Their desire for power for power's sake is self-evident. Incidentally, Trudeau has been in power longer than Harper was so by your wife's logic he should be gone
Harper did a few months short of ten years. JT has some way to go to match that.
 
The very fact that the liberal party has not told him to leave is evidence that they should be booted to the curb. Their desire for power for power's sake is self-evident. Incidentally, Trudeau has been in power longer than Harper was so by your wife's logic he should be gone
I don’t like to see any party in power for too long, even if a prime minister steps down and is replaced by someone from his or her party. Political power engenders not only arrogance and complacency but also waste and corruption. It was more than time for the Harper government to be thrown out of office. And the same is true of the Trudeau government. I am often happiest when a party is in power with only a minority government. But that would also depend on which party holds the balance of power and what their agenda is.

Regardless, I agree with many of the political experts around the world who are saying that war with China is not simply a possibility but a likelihood in the next few years. What we need is a Churchill to lead us. Right now, we have at best a Chamberlain. But even Chamberlain, prior to the invasion of Czechoslovakia, finally saw how wrong he was to trust Hitler and began to take steps to re-arm Britain. Unfortunately, our prime minister has shown no such prescience.
 
Very good article in The Economist. Excerpts, below:

"Mr Xi’s true intentions are hidden in plain sight. While professing neutrality, he still refuses to condemn Russia’s invasion or its soldiers’ atrocities. In Moscow he will almost certainly join Mr Putin in blaming the war, yet again, on the expansion of nato. (Chinese officials and state media draw parallels with America’s bid to strengthen its alliances in Asia in preparation for a potential Chinese assault on Taiwan.) And even if Mr Xi stops short of sending Russia weapons, he will probably offer more non-military support to help sustain Mr Putin’s war. Although China largely avoids violating Western sanctions on Russia, it has not joined them. Indeed, it helps Russia offset their impact by buying more of its oil and gas, and selling it more electronics and other goods.

China’s peace plan, meanwhile, is a non-starter for Ukraine and its Western backers. It advocates an end to Western sanctions without requiring Russia to withdraw from Ukrainian territory. It sticks closely to Kremlin talking points in arguing that security “should not be pursued at the expense of others”, nor by “strengthening or expanding military blocs”. Such points echo Mr Xi’s “Global Security Initiative”, which he proposed last year as an alternative to the American-led “rules-based international order” and will probably promote enthusiastically over the next few days.

Mr Xi’s stance unsettles some in China’s elite. It shreds the country’s claim to be pursuing a foreign policy rooted in respect for sovereignty, and undermines a guarantee it made in 2013 to help Ukraine if it were threatened with nuclear attack. It makes Chinese attempts to cleave Europe from America much harder. Chinese strategists are clear-eyed, too, about Russia’s unpredictable politics and dismal economic prospects. Arming it would expose China to severe sanctions from America and the European Union, its two biggest trading partners, hobbling efforts to revive its economy. Talk of a new cold war would harden into reality.

Yet Mr Xi’s calculations are dominated by his conviction that China is locked in a long-term confrontation with America that might lead to a war over Taiwan, which it claims as its territory. In that context Russia still represents an indispensable source of energy, military technology and diplomatic support. A Russian defeat in Ukraine would embolden America and its allies. If Mr Putin’s grip on power slipped, instability on China’s vast northern border with Russia could follow. Worst of all, it could usher into the Kremlin a pro-Western leader tempted to help America to contain Chinese power, in a mirror image of China’s own strategic shift in the 1970s.

In the decade before Mr Xi took power in 2012, he also appears to have been influenced by leftist academics and fellow “princelings” (as offspring of Communist Party leaders are known) who became disillusioned with the West, especially after the financial crisis in 2007-09. Inspired by Mr Putin, then near the height of his power, they began to see Russia as a potential partner and to question Chinese historians’ conclusions that the Soviet Union collapsed owing to problems dating back to Stalin. Instead, they blamed Mikhail Gorbachev and his liberalising reforms.

Chinese perceptions of Russian military prowess have also changed since the war began. Russian successes in Crimea, Georgia and Syria had convinced Chinese generals that Mr Putin was a great strategist with an effective army. Drills between the two countries’ armed forces have focused on interoperability. Recent Chinese military reforms have replicated those in Russia. But Chinese commanders have been shocked by Mr Putin’s miscalculations over Ukraine and the lacklustre performance of Russian soldiers and weaponry.

Disillusion is not confined to military types. In December Feng Yujun, a prominent Russia expert at Fudan University, in Shanghai, made a scathing speech in which he noted that Russia had annexed millions of square miles of Chinese territory between 1860 and 1945. The Soviet Union then forced China to distance itself from the West and pushed it to enter the Korean war, in which “countless” Chinese troops were killed, he argued. Modern Russia, he went on, had not accepted its weakness relative to China and was obsessed with rebuilding its empire. “The weakest party in the China-America-Russia triangle always benefits the most,” he concluded.

As for Russia’s request for lethal weapons, China is most likely undecided. America’s allegation that China is mulling sending arms may be more of a pre-emptive public warning than evidence of imminent action. Chinese officials deny any such plans exist. But China may see another opportunity to gain leverage. In public statements and private discussions its officials increasingly draw a link with America’s provision of weapons to Taiwan. “Why does the US ask China not to provide weapons to Russia while it keeps selling arms to Taiwan?” asked Qin Gang, China’s new foreign minister, at his debut news conference on March 7th.

If Mr Xi does decide to arm Russia, he may do so covertly. China has a long history of clandestine arms exports. In the 1980s it secretly supplied Chinese-made variants of the Soviet AK-47 assault rifle to CIA-backed mujahideen insurgents in Afghanistan. Providing Russia with artillery shells would be easy: Chinese arms-makers produce similar models and can remove markings, or add ones suggesting they originate elsewhere, says Dennis Wilder, a former CIA officer who used to track Chinese arms exports. China could also supply weaponry via third countries, like North Korea or Iran, or provide them with incentives to ship their own arms to Russia. America might detect such moves, but proving them will be harder. “All China needs is plausible deniability,” says Mr Wilder.

In the end Mr Xi’s decision could depend on how the war plays out, and especially on the outcome of the expected Ukrainian counter-offensive in the coming months. It could hinge, too, on the level of tensions between China and America over Taiwan, suggests Alexander Korolev, who studies China-Russia relations at the University of New South Wales in Australia. “If, by sending weapons to [Russian troops in] Ukraine, China can control the level of escalation and keep Russia going for as long as needed, then it can keep the West busy,” he says. “That makes it more feasible to deal with Taiwan.”"
 

‘I’M SURE CHINA DIDN’T MEAN ANYTHING BY IT’: INSIDE THE THOUGHTS OF DAVID JOHNSTON​

National Post - 18 Mar 2023 - Tristin hopper

This week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau selected former governor general David Johnston to act as a “special rapporteur” tasked with probing the extent of alleged Chinese interference in Canadian democracy. While Johnston’s time as governor general has generally been praised by all sides, when it comes to this new gig it was quickly noted that the former viceroy has a few conflicts of interest at play: He’s a member of the Trudeau Foundation, he had a pretty soft-handed approach to Communist China as GG, and he’s a longtime family friend of Trudeau. In Dear Diary, the National Post satirically reimagines a week in the life of a newsmaker. This week, Tristin Hopper takes a journey inside the thoughts of former governor general David Johnston.

MONDAY
As I rose early to witness the first rays of sunlight dance across my Lanark County farm, I took a moment to reflect that this is truly the greatest and most functional country on earth. Canada is a prosperous land where affordable shelter is available to all who seek it. Our currency is stable and well-managed. Our city centres are models of cleanliness and order. Our military is a devoted, well-oiled machine acting as a living testimonial to the phrase “we stand on guard for thee.” Our government is competent, dutiful and above reproach.
If I could sum up this beautiful land in one word, it would be this: Effectiveness.

TUESDAY
I am pleased to report that I am rounding the corner on my latest book, Ingenia, about the indomitable inventive spirit of the Canadian people. From the Avro Arrow to the paint roller, I do not think it hyperbole to say that we Canadians have invented the modern world. Just last week, I had one of my assistants ride an articulated motorbus in Toronto, where they reported that fare collection was now being done electronically via wallet-sized cards. “Tokens? What tokens?” she said, savouring my amazement.
What a time to be alive.

WEDNESDAY
I was drafting an official statement commemorating the 107th anniversary of the Battle of Dujaila when Sharon called me into the conservatory to take a phone call. “It’s the prime minister,” she said. I guessed Chrétien; Jean and I were supposed to be getting together for an afternoon of ringette. But no, it was the incumbent, and he was asking me to act as a so-called “special rapporteur” investigating allegations of “interference” into Canadian democracy.
I’ll admit I haven’t been following the news all that closely, but I assume this is something to do with the crisis of “internet disinformation” that I’ve heard so much about. Just the other day over rounds of euchre, Beverley Mclachlin was telling me that there are electronic websites in which unlicensed writers can publish “news” without any apparent oversight by government or even a professional sanctioning body. How responsible government has any future amid such anarchy, I have no idea.

THURSDAY
After a briefing by the Prime Minister’s Office, I see now that we face a threat far darker than even the most cunning excesses of Facebook or the Tweetsphere. A complex Chinese conspiracy — hitherto unknown to the top levels of our federal government — has reportedly been mounting a hostile mission to subvert the very foundations of our electoral system.
I see now why I was selected for this task. I have long been a devoted student of the Asian mindset and its interplay with the democratic West. Contrary to the populist cynicism that may have infected our journalistic class of late, the Chinese do not mean us harm and wish only for us to join them in a new multipolar era of mutual prosperity. In this, sparks are bound to arise. I hold out hope that Beijing is simply unaware that foreign electoral interference is considered unacceptable by most Canadians.

FRIDAY
My mandate letter arrived this morning by courier. As expected, it stressed that my probe is not to be an official inquiry. It was decided that the Canadian people could not handle the fractiousness of an inquiry at such an already divisive time — a sentiment with which I’m inclined to agree.
By 9 a.m. — with the invigoration of a new mission already coursing through me — I set upon the first stage of my probe: Contacting the federal cabinet and asking them — point blank — if they experienced interference by China or know anybody who did.
My first call — as per an annotated contact list included with the letter — was to Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino. “No, I have not previously heard of any allegations of interference, and I share Canadians’ outrage at the mere suggestion,” he said. 39 more to go!
 
  • Humorous
Reactions: ueo
Very good article in The Economist. Excerpts, below:

"Mr Xi’s true intentions are hidden in plain sight. While professing neutrality, he still refuses to condemn Russia’s invasion or its soldiers’ atrocities. In Moscow he will almost certainly join Mr Putin in blaming the war, yet again, on the expansion of nato. (Chinese officials and state media draw parallels with America’s bid to strengthen its alliances in Asia in preparation for a potential Chinese assault on Taiwan.) And even if Mr Xi stops short of sending Russia weapons, he will probably offer more non-military support to help sustain Mr Putin’s war. Although China largely avoids violating Western sanctions on Russia, it has not joined them. Indeed, it helps Russia offset their impact by buying more of its oil and gas, and selling it more electronics and other goods.

China’s peace plan, meanwhile, is a non-starter for Ukraine and its Western backers. It advocates an end to Western sanctions without requiring Russia to withdraw from Ukrainian territory. It sticks closely to Kremlin talking points in arguing that security “should not be pursued at the expense of others”, nor by “strengthening or expanding military blocs”. Such points echo Mr Xi’s “Global Security Initiative”, which he proposed last year as an alternative to the American-led “rules-based international order” and will probably promote enthusiastically over the next few days.

Mr Xi’s stance unsettles some in China’s elite. It shreds the country’s claim to be pursuing a foreign policy rooted in respect for sovereignty, and undermines a guarantee it made in 2013 to help Ukraine if it were threatened with nuclear attack. It makes Chinese attempts to cleave Europe from America much harder. Chinese strategists are clear-eyed, too, about Russia’s unpredictable politics and dismal economic prospects. Arming it would expose China to severe sanctions from America and the European Union, its two biggest trading partners, hobbling efforts to revive its economy. Talk of a new cold war would harden into reality.

Yet Mr Xi’s calculations are dominated by his conviction that China is locked in a long-term confrontation with America that might lead to a war over Taiwan, which it claims as its territory. In that context Russia still represents an indispensable source of energy, military technology and diplomatic support. A Russian defeat in Ukraine would embolden America and its allies. If Mr Putin’s grip on power slipped, instability on China’s vast northern border with Russia could follow. Worst of all, it could usher into the Kremlin a pro-Western leader tempted to help America to contain Chinese power, in a mirror image of China’s own strategic shift in the 1970s.

In the decade before Mr Xi took power in 2012, he also appears to have been influenced by leftist academics and fellow “princelings” (as offspring of Communist Party leaders are known) who became disillusioned with the West, especially after the financial crisis in 2007-09. Inspired by Mr Putin, then near the height of his power, they began to see Russia as a potential partner and to question Chinese historians’ conclusions that the Soviet Union collapsed owing to problems dating back to Stalin. Instead, they blamed Mikhail Gorbachev and his liberalising reforms.

Chinese perceptions of Russian military prowess have also changed since the war began. Russian successes in Crimea, Georgia and Syria had convinced Chinese generals that Mr Putin was a great strategist with an effective army. Drills between the two countries’ armed forces have focused on interoperability. Recent Chinese military reforms have replicated those in Russia. But Chinese commanders have been shocked by Mr Putin’s miscalculations over Ukraine and the lacklustre performance of Russian soldiers and weaponry.

Disillusion is not confined to military types. In December Feng Yujun, a prominent Russia expert at Fudan University, in Shanghai, made a scathing speech in which he noted that Russia had annexed millions of square miles of Chinese territory between 1860 and 1945. The Soviet Union then forced China to distance itself from the West and pushed it to enter the Korean war, in which “countless” Chinese troops were killed, he argued. Modern Russia, he went on, had not accepted its weakness relative to China and was obsessed with rebuilding its empire. “The weakest party in the China-America-Russia triangle always benefits the most,” he concluded.

As for Russia’s request for lethal weapons, China is most likely undecided. America’s allegation that China is mulling sending arms may be more of a pre-emptive public warning than evidence of imminent action. Chinese officials deny any such plans exist. But China may see another opportunity to gain leverage. In public statements and private discussions its officials increasingly draw a link with America’s provision of weapons to Taiwan. “Why does the US ask China not to provide weapons to Russia while it keeps selling arms to Taiwan?” asked Qin Gang, China’s new foreign minister, at his debut news conference on March 7th.

If Mr Xi does decide to arm Russia, he may do so covertly. China has a long history of clandestine arms exports. In the 1980s it secretly supplied Chinese-made variants of the Soviet AK-47 assault rifle to CIA-backed mujahideen insurgents in Afghanistan. Providing Russia with artillery shells would be easy: Chinese arms-makers produce similar models and can remove markings, or add ones suggesting they originate elsewhere, says Dennis Wilder, a former CIA officer who used to track Chinese arms exports. China could also supply weaponry via third countries, like North Korea or Iran, or provide them with incentives to ship their own arms to Russia. America might detect such moves, but proving them will be harder. “All China needs is plausible deniability,” says Mr Wilder.

In the end Mr Xi’s decision could depend on how the war plays out, and especially on the outcome of the expected Ukrainian counter-offensive in the coming months. It could hinge, too, on the level of tensions between China and America over Taiwan, suggests Alexander Korolev, who studies China-Russia relations at the University of New South Wales in Australia. “If, by sending weapons to [Russian troops in] Ukraine, China can control the level of escalation and keep Russia going for as long as needed, then it can keep the West busy,” he says. “That makes it more feasible to deal with Taiwan.”"

The parallels between ‘Russia’s Ukraine’ and ‘China’s Taiwan’ are not insignificant…
 

“A klieg light is what’s needed, not a rapporteur or belated consultations with community members who have been complaining about foreign interference and asking for a foreign influence registry for years.



This isn’t about racism. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau initially attempted to brush aside calls for an investigation by brandishing the R word.
So has Senator Yuen Pau Woo, whose cries have been echoed by Beijing-friendly leaders of organizations like the Chinese Benevolent Society that took out full-page newspaper ads in 2019 supporting China’s crackdown on democracy protests in Hong Kong.



Asking for foreign influencers to register also isn’t a “modern form of Chinese exclusion” as Woo further suggested before urging senators to recommend investigating CSIS for the leaks rather than going after China for attempting to subvert and erode our democracy.



It’s not racism when the Canadians with the strongest voices urging an immediate investigation are people with personal knowledge and experience of foreign influence.



They are people who know all too well the bully tactics that authoritarian regimes use to sow fear, uncertainty and how they spread lies that undermine trust in institutions.”
 
The very fact that the liberal party has not told him to leave is evidence that they should be booted to the curb. Their desire for power for power's sake is self-evident. Incidentally, Trudeau has been in power longer than Harper was so by your wife's logic he should be gone
They were - or at least the majority of them - all wooed and starry eyed at the name "Trudeau" thinking he'd lead Canada to the promised land - which appears to be China.

I have said this before - I do not fondly recall the times when PET was PM. And JT is far worse.
 
Whether you agreed with Pierre Trudeau or not, he was an intellectual in his own right with a lot of accomplishments before entering politics.

Justin…not so much.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ueo
Interesting bit 10 days ago) from the NDP’s Charlie Angus raising questions in the House about Chinese involvement and control in the pulp and paper industry, with one huge company particularly mentioned.. That company, Angus says, has holdings the size of Nova Scotia. Interesting perspective.

 
Again, Charlie Angus, (broadcast 2 years ago) not letting the Conservatives off the hook for their past record in allowing China to get control of our resources. Also, a reply by Conservative critic James Bezan.

 
Whether you agreed with Pierre Trudeau or not, he was an intellectual in his own right with a lot of accomplishments before entering politics.

Justin…not so much.
Both father and son as well as countless other future Quebec leaders attended the Jesuit-run Collège Jean-de-Brébeuf.
 
Both father and son as well as countless other future Quebec leaders attended the Jesuit-run Collège Jean-de-Brébeuf.
My wife went to Brébeuf as well as some other friends. I can assure you it’s not run by Jésuite anymore. One indication of that, JT went there and got is diplomas ;)
 
I am not at all surprised by this we had Canadian citizens meddling in Indian internal affairs for some time. Long before the bombing of the Air India flight.
Ex-citizens of most countries often try to influence the affairs of the land of their birth...some legally and others not-so-legally. It’s when governments do it to another state where things start getting dicey.
 
Back
Top