vi-va

Trump 这个二货，为了大选，头三年拼命压利率，透支美元。最后一年一个新冠，6万亿美元进去了。三万亿已经花了，嘛用没有。还有3-4万亿要花出去。这个烧钱速度，老美玩军备竞赛自己就把自己拖死。
美国忘了自己怎么把苏联拖死的，结果自己成了穷步黩武的二货。

中国来伊朗入局，犹太一定跳。要么现在趁trump手里还有权力在中东发动战争，要么坐等伊朗恢复元气。前者要花万亿美元，而且游击战无解，没有百万大军根本压不住伊朗那个多山地形。后者，相当于继续分散美国军力和政治资本。

1964年，毛泽东谈中美关系和香港问题：“关于美国是否在准备第三次世界大战的问题，我们过去讲过，现在也还是这样看。可以看一看历史，美国总是到最后才参加国际战争的。第一次世界大战是如此，第二次世界大战也是如此。现在美国手伸得太长，是十个手指按住十个跳蚤，一个也抓不住。美国现在在两个“第三世界”都遇到抵抗。”

所以中国这次硬顶，就是搓破了印度的左右逢源的战略构想。真的把刀子逼在了印度的肚子上。印度如果继续强硬，就会成为砧板上被捶打的货，彻底失去被美国拉拢的筹码。


印度如果不强硬，就会被全世界包括印度周边国家识破印度色厉内荏。现在尼泊尔是毛派当家，巴基斯坦因为克什米尔370等问题也放弃了绥靖的构想。

印度突然发现自己从优良的外交地位一下子跌入深渊。这个深渊恰恰是modi外交失衡的结果。

Modi走民粹派，但是在国家关键的建设方面少有建树。说得多，做得少。一旦硬碰硬，就泄了。

这就充分展现了印度学自英国的英式外交特色。

所谓只制衡不对抗，绝非克制，而是精明。实质是让其他国家和中国冲突，印度坐得渔利，甚至能两面叫价，不到最后一刻绝不随便摊牌。

所谓只合作不结盟，就是有距离地互相利用，但保持更灵活的外交主动权，和更大的加盟叫价权。

这就提醒我们，印度其实是在三个点之间求平衡：

·印度不希望美国深入印度洋

·印度也不准备真帮美国打中国

·印度更不希望看到一个强大的中国，尤其不希望看到一个进入印度洋的强大中国

这就决定了印度的战略，一定是继续在不结盟的幌子下保持自己的行动自由，但又要可了劲地宣传中国威胁论，绷紧中美关系。用中国威胁论掩护印度崛起的同时，还要用印度崩溃论同时迷惑中美。对美国打中国牌，对中国打美国牌。两面叫价，套足实利。中美关系缓和的时候就制造紧张空气。中美关系吃紧的时候就用不结盟来和美国保持距离，用中印合作套取好处。一有机会，还不忘了对华搞蚕食、挖墙脚，甚至搞机会主义冒险。

印度要联华反美？那你就想少了
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzAwNTkyNDY2MQ%3D%3D&mid=2247487480&idx=1&sn=a4530627a54024abd16e832897e90348

It will definitely keep Israeli expansion in check and could have lead to an actual two state solution as for Europe it will be much more independent in foreign affairs Germany could have also been reunified much earlier under neutral regime

https://zh.wikisource.org/zh-hans/%E8%8B%8F%E5%85%B1%E9%A2%86%E5%AF%BC%E5%90%8C%E6%88%91%E4%BB%AC%E5%88%86%E6%AD%A7%E7%9A%84%E7%94%B1%E6%9D%A5%E5%92%8C%E5%8F%91%E5%B1%95

US is much better on propaganda. The legacy of the empire on which the sun never sets benefited US quite a lot.
The marriage of British and US is the legacy of F.D.R.
F.D.R. knew how to force GB give up pride and be a good lad.
Nazi Germany benefited US, USSR India and China on geo politics terms.

China in a way has been able to create its own it eco system I am old enough to remember Bush railing against the firewall

China has started preparing self-circulation economy, as well as reaching out to more countries.
China as a latecomer has many shortcomings, but as an ancient civilization, we went through way too many ups and downs.
Prepare for the worst, and endurance is the key for winning.

The WASP was unchallenged for way too long. Their people are not prepared for sacrifice, at least not yet.

If you knew how difficult I get into the top university in China, while the minorities can get into it with lower test score. You will know a small portion of how well they were treated.
Ground reality is not the same as western media reported at all.

Keep it. It's totally fine. Not a big deal.

Look I understand what you saying. I also know china does provide good facilities to its minorities. On the other hand, lots of our problems in Pakistan are due to us not doing that. Still, I just wanted to clarify. Take good care.

I'll look into it friend.

Thank you!!!

@waz, @WebMaster . Thanks a lot for the adjustment. I will play by the book.

Sure, sure.

what's up?

Wanted to know some weibo accounts to follow related to defence, osint, and tech leaks.

I am not familiar with. You can check with @LKJ86

I think Pakistan could get around the India problem by making peace with it, but that won't happen anytime soon.

Modernity is good, but the road to modernity is bumpy. Many countries failed on the halfway. Such as Thailand, Philippines, South America, Mexico, Egypt, and the list can go on and on.

There are two countries are similar to China. One is Singapore, governed by elites base on credibility and capability. One is Iran, centralized the power on top of all interest group and sectarians.
The difference between China and Singapore is size.
The difference between China and Iran is CCP Party versus Guardian Council.

A lot of PDF members here are prone liberal, especially those get educated or live in western countries.
Chinese are bashed, which I am not surprised.

Welcome back @viva_zhao , hope to have good convo with you on matters soon. Osman sadly got banned for a week just now

Thank you, my Indian friend.
I noticed that. My post got deleted yesterday as well. I can live with it. :)

China need soft power, China lag behind for decades. Many reasons, the biggest decline of China civilization in history since 19th century, the invasion of western powers, the invasion of Japanese(which is heart breaking, because Japanese is Chinese culturally back in 1930s), and revolutions after revolutions, good and bad ones.

China is lonely, most of the resources on earth has been occupied by western powers, if you count European, Russia, US, Canada, Australia, South America together, they has 8 times of resources of China.

China is no fool, it's long long term game. If China fail, I am pretty sure, the future of all Muslim is dark. There is no one can check the western power. Literally NO ONE.

No, I did NOT misunderstand. The same elites who speak English, read English in HK and Pakistan. Those elites think for themselves, love themselves more than the countries. And the very small group, who can influence the media, banking, court, and make huge damage to Pakistan.
If Pakistan can NOT control them, they control Pakistan.
I read too much history, the Chinese history, thousands lessons learnt.

"Inferred" methodology (most popular in the internet clickbait) is just not a substitute for direct sampling (before we even get to IQ vs final functional intelligence arguments), should we say Chinese were "low IQ/intelligence" at their worst relative development time period (say 1940s?)

As a scientific analysis, people sampled should have similar education back ground in the similar age and nutriture.

You should compare difference races in the U.S. Or different races in China.

I am not a racist, but I don't believe all men are equal neither.

I believe some are good at math, some are good at art, some are good at sports, and so on. My English sucks, my physics is good.

I mostly agree, I just put direct data for all this stuff as the only standard to measure. If its IQ, then you got to design sample survey with direct measurement of IQ...simple. The quoted IQ comparisons do not do that....they infer too much. Its not good science to me. Just measure what you say you want to measure, period.