Venezuela - US Conflict: News, Updates

[_Arabia_]

Ref the highlighted...No.

If you are JPNese, Korean, or Vietnamese, you would understand.


Worried.

In Asia, China is constrained by just about everyone else. Whereas in the Western Hemisphere, no one can confined US. And now, China and Russia lost their major, if not only, foothold in the Western Hemisphere.

I agree with this and what you wrote is what I wrote earlier. What I don't understand and where my criticism is directed towards, is the overly passivity of China when it comes to protecting/supporting their allies.

Yes, Venezuela is far away from China but if the USSR could aid Cuba 60-65 years ago, why can China not do the the same thing in 2025/26? They are stronger than USSR technologically (no comparison). They have an enormous army, economy etc.

It is not because they cannot do it, something else is preventing them from doing it, either by choice or force. Not sure if they worry about direct US intervention.

But in reality is there anything that prevents say Colombia from inviting the Chinese to set up a military base? If the US can set up numerous military bases next to China, why can China not do similar? Mind you Venezuela is much further away from mainland US than say Okinawa is from China or South Korea (next door literally).

Where was the support for Iran in the summer as well? Why is China not supporting Russia more aggressively and doing more to prevent the US and Russia from finding a solution?

Chinese elites should be able to see that Trump is trying to charm Russia back into the Western fold because the US is worried that a real genuine Russian and Chinese alliance will change the power balance in Eurasia.

It is this passivity that I have argued is bound in Chinese history, that I find frustrating to witness. It is good for the nonaligned world to have numerous multipolar powers out there and not just 1 hegemon high on power that acts crazy. What is next? Is the US going to annex Palestine/Syria and hand it over to Israel because they feel like it (of course that will never happen peacefully, Arabs are not Venezuelans and even small Palestinians have not given up despite 80 + years of brutality) but it is just an example. We could use examples in Europe of the US "giving" permission to Russia to annex certain countries.

 

[gambit]

I agree with this and what you wrote is what I wrote earlier. What I don't understand and where my criticism is directed towards, is the overly passivity of China when it comes to protecting/supporting their allies.

China have no allies, even if we stretch the definition and context of 'ally'.

If the UK is attacked, the US will respond even if there is no legal contract between the two countries, and God help anyone standing in the way. China have so such ally, either to go to their aid or they come to China's aid. China is alone. And please, do not bring up Pakistan. How many Pakistanis here willing to give up their lives for China?

 

[ety]

China have no allies, even if we stretch the definition and context of 'ally'.

If the UK is attacked, the US will respond even if there is no legal contract between the two countries, and God help anyone standing in the way. China have so such ally, either to go to their aid or they come to China's aid. China is alone. And please, do not bring up Pakistan. How many Pakistanis here willing to give up their lives for China?

And old man don't forget Russia. Russian FM recently just stated that Russia will come to China's aid at any cost as agreed in their treaty if war breaks out between China and Japan/US over Taiwan. The same goes to China, if Russia is invaded by US/NATO, China will come to its aid. Most of your so called allies are pussies.

 

[chinasun]

P

USA has some sort of control over militaries of the globe.

However, Pakistani army has gained maximum independence from US recently.

Question is, what will China do if one day USA decides to invade Pakistan militarily?

Its a long way, i know. It requires years of progress and first priority is BRICS and its independent financial basis. USA uses its financial dominance to bribe or put pressure on independent entities.

Unfortunately, I haven't heard anything about BRICS currency recently. Wonder why? Is it abandoned or is it still waiting for more infrastructure?

There are only two directions that can truly threaten the United States: one is Eastern Europe, where a Germany-Russia alliance would pose a significant challenge; the other is East Asia, which centers on China. Due to the war in Ukraine, Germany is now hostile toward Russia. The U.S. hopes to withdraw its military from Europe and the Middle East, strategically pulling back to North America while focusing on strengthening its presence in East Asia to concentrate on countering China. The next five years will be the most intense period of U.S.-China rivalry.
China’s main vulnerability is Taiwan. Pakistan is not a strategically vital location, and the U.S. has never considered invading it. If the U.S. were to invade Pakistan, China would gladly join forces with Russia and Iran to confront the U.S.
China supports the BRICS currency and has been promoting gold and silver as international currencies, with the renminbi pegged to gold.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[_Arabia_]

China have no allies, even if we stretch the definition and context of 'ally'.

If the UK is attacked, the US will respond even if there is no legal contract between the two countries, and God help anyone standing in the way. China have so such ally, either to go to their aid or they come to China's aid. China is alone. And please, do not bring up Pakistan. How many Pakistanis here willing to give up their lives for China?

Simply because China has not developed a treaty based military, political and economic alliance like NATO or formerly the Warsaw Pact (USSR dominated). That was one of my previous criticism of China. The inability to create something similar. Maybe this was never needed or of any Chinese interest? To me it is strange because as I wrote, I believe that East Asia could become an area of Chinese dominance (economic, military, cultural) but for whatever reason that is not the case yet. Mostly due to past events WW2/prior to that/European colonization in the region etc.

Nevertheless it is strange to me that for instance communist Vietnam and communist China (both on paper at least) are not formal allies today. Similarly with Mongolia given that more Mongol people live in China than in Mongolia.

No official treaty with even North Korea, in many ways a Chinese/USSR creation after the Korean civil war from what I am aware of. Of course an unofficial exist which maybe is all that is needed anyway..

I am no expert and don't pretend to be on East Asia, likely never will be as a foreigner who does not master any local language fully, but from the outside it appears strange to me given the huge size of China, enormous population and past cultural influence in the region.

Do you think that the situation would be differently had the Chinese civil war ended differently and the so-called Nationalists had won?

As for Pakistan, I am not a Pakistani but I do understand that the Pakistan-China ties/relationship is that of convenience with India being the main focus but there is also geography at play here and shared interests. Seems that high level trust has been build up between both ruling classes and there seems to be mutual respect and in general cordial ties.

Same like with KSA and much of the Arab world. But we are not bound by any treaties, located far away from each other and rest is self-explanatory.

If I was an advisor of the Chinese president and the political elite in China, I would try to emphasize and reach out to fellow East Asians for the reasons that I have stated in the past and try to reach some understanding. After all you cannot decide your neighbors.

BTW, I still struggle to pick North Vietnamese and South Chinese part from each other. That is how close you guys are to me.

 

[gambit]

Why is that? What exact grievances can Japanese have against Chinese when it was the Japanese Imperial army that was the aggressor and invader of much of East Asia, including mainland China, and which was the party that brutally killed millions of innocent civilians in East Asia?

What grievances can Koreans have against China? Maybe I am ill informed but it was not China that caused the Korean civil war and the very testament of such a small countries and civilizations existence next to China tells me that China was not exactly acting like the Mongols or Imperial Japanese Army.

As far as Vietnam goes, this is more complicated and I would more understand some Vietnamese grievances but on the other hand Vietnam is a fellow communist country and North Vietnam and Vietnam as a whole has close cultural ties to China. For instance can you even pick apart a person from South China and North Vietnam? Because I struggle too.

Any way this was more in a civilizational/people to people sense, not anything to do with whether you like regime x or y in power, the communist party or whatever.

Surely there most be a degree of kinship or are you telling me that you as a Vietnamese American feel a closer kinship to the average African-American, German-American etc. rather than a Chinese-American? I find that difficult to believe.

I also believe that Japanese language, in particular if written with traditional letters, may use identical letters originally from China. When I studied a bit of Mandarin (was hard) I noticed the similarities in symbols (some) between Mandarin and Japanese and I believe this originates from China.

There is a limit on how far back you can go. But the harsh reality is that IMMEDIATE politics matters more than history.

During the Cold War, China was engaging in racist tactics against other Asian countries, as testified by Lee Kuan Yew, former PM of Singapore.

Amazon.com

Chapter 37

Deng Xiaoping's China

The Malaysians must be suspicious of Deng. There were underlying suspicions and animosity between Malay Muslims and Chinese in Malaysia, and between Indonesians and their ethnic Chinese. Because China was exporting revolution to Southeast Asia, my Asean neighbors wanted Singapore to rally with them, not against the Soviet Union, but against China.

Asean governments regarded radio broadcasts from China appealing directly to their ethnic Chinese as dangerous subversion. Deng listened silently. He had never seen it this light: China, a big foreign power, going over the governments of the region to subvert their citizens. I said it was most unlikely that Asean countries would respond positively to his proposal for a united front against the Soviet Union and Vietnam and suggested that we discuss on how to resolve this problem. Then I paused.

Deng's expression and body language registered consternation. He knew that I had spoken the truth. Abruptly, he asked, "What do you want me to do?" I was astonished. I had never met a communist leader who was prepared to depart from his brief when confronted with reality, much less ask what I wanted him to do. I had expected him to brush my points aside as Premier Hua Guofeng had done in Beijing in 1976 when I pressed him over the inconsistency of China's supporting the Malayan Communist Party to foment revolution in Singapore, not Malaya. Hua had answered with bluster, "I do not know the details, but whenever communists fight, they will win." Not Deng. He realized that he had to face up to this problem if Vietnam was to be isolated. I hesitated to tell this seasoned, weather-beaten revolutionary what he should do, but since he had asked me, I said, "Stop such radio broadcasts; stop such appeals. It will be better for the ethnic Chinese in Asean if China does not underline their kinship and call upon their ethnic sympathy. The suspicion of the indigenous peoples will always be there, whether or not China emphasizes these blood ties. But if China appeals to these blood ties so blatantly, it must increase their suspicions, China must stop radio broadcasts from south China by the Malayan and Indonesian Communist Parties.​

Basically, China was calling for resident Chinese to rise up in armed insurrections against the host countries. The Cold War ended not too long ago. I was active duty (USAF) during the Cold War. How many from that era are still alive today? Plenty of us. That China was willing to engage in racism as a tactic of war against other Asians is evident that China have ZERO interests in any kind of racial/ethnic ties among Asians. You need at least 200 yrs of separation between the past and the present in order to even try to convince the people living in the present to discard their past.

Going back to Venezuela. There is nothing China can do. The current Venezuelan government is too weak to resist their own people, let alone the US. Ties among other Latin American countries are equally fragile, politically and historically. Why else do we see they do nothing? Chinese and Venezuelans willing to die for each other?

 

[Cash gk]

we recommended Nobel prize for US president,US has its supporters!

We have their slaves running the country. Perhaps the Pakistani establishment anticipated and feared that Pakistan could be attacked in the same manner as Venezuela, including an attempt to kidnap Prime Minister Imran Khan. To save themselves from embarrassment and exposure, they pre-emptively removed their own prime minister. The demand reportedly came through a second- or third-grade diplomat

 

[PakFactor]

Simply because China has not developed a treaty based military, political and economic alliance like NATO or formerly the Warsaw Pact (USSR dominated). That was one of my previous criticism of China. The inability to create something similar. Maybe this was never needed or of any Chinese interest? To me it is strange because as I wrote, I believe that East Asia could become an area of Chinese dominance (economic, military, cultural) but for whatever reason that is not the case yet. Mostly due to past events WW2/prior to that/European colonization in the region etc.

Nevertheless it is strange to me that for instance communist Vietnam and communist China (both on paper at least) are not formal allies today. Similarly with Mongolia given that more Mongol people live in China than in Mongolia.

No official treaty with even North Korea, in many ways a Chinese/USSR creation after the Korean civil war from what I am aware of. Of course an unofficial exist which maybe is all that is needed anyway..

I am no expert and don't pretend to be on East Asia, likely never will be as a foreigner who does not master any local language fully, but from the outside it appears strange to me given the huge size of China, enormous population and past cultural influence in the region.

Do you think that the situation would be differently had the Chinese civil war ended differently and the so-called Nationalists had won?

As for Pakistan, I am not a Pakistani but I do understand that the Pakistan-China ties/relationship is that of convenience with India being the main focus but there is also geography at play here and shared interests. Seems that high level trust has been build up between both ruling classes and there seems to be mutual respect and in general cordial ties.

Same like with KSA and much of the Arab world. But we are not bound by any treaties, located far away from each other and rest is self-explanatory.

If I was an advisor of the Chinese president and the political elite in China, I would try to emphasize and reach out to fellow East Asians for the reasons that I have stated in the past and try to reach some understanding. After all you cannot decide your neighbors.

BTW, I still struggle to pick North Vietnamese and South Chinese part from each other. That is how close you guys are to me.

I will address the first point and the Pakistan part. Before both World Wars, the Americans and British didn't have much of a treaty, and the Americans came. During World War I, the Americans considered themselves an associated power, fighting alongside the Entente and not bound by its treaties. By World War II, Lend-Lease and the Atlantic Charter set the special relationship we see today.

This all happened before the United States became the power it is today and had formal treaties with nation-states.

As for Pakistan-China, it's a relationship of convenience to contain India, and, sadly, aside from one or two air-to-air battles, Pakistan is failing on this front: it's failed on governance and economic policies. It has become a dead horse that China has to carry.

Speak with some inner circles in the Chinese corridors of power, what they say about Pakistan is this: per mutual contacts, Pakistan is good on paper, but still America's dog; that is how we are viewed within China, where power walks.

Lastly, there is no people-to-people contact between China and Pakistan; it's just between the upper echelons. How many Chinese do you see in Pakistan living and earning and integrating, and the same number of Pakistani's in China? Then compare that with Pakistani's in the West. There isn't even a strong cultural exchange between the two.

 

[gambit]

Simply because China has not developed a treaty based military, political and economic alliance like NATO or formerly the Warsaw Pact (USSR dominated). That was one of my previous criticism of China.

Because China was still very much under the influence/control from the Soviets.

Do you think that the situation would be differently had the Chinese civil war ended differently and the so-called Nationalists had won?

Yes.

I will posit this...

If China had stayed in China under the Nationalists, the Vietnam War would NOT occurred and that war was the critical pivot in world history. And if the VN War did not occurred, world geopolitics would be very different than what we are seeing today.

 

[Cash gk]

There are only two directions that can truly threaten the United States: one is Eastern Europe, where a Germany-Russia alliance would pose a significant challenge; the other is East Asia, which centers on China. Due to the war in Ukraine, Germany is now hostile toward Russia. The U.S. hopes to withdraw its military from Europe and the Middle East, strategically pulling back to North America while focusing on strengthening its presence in East Asia to concentrate on countering China. The next five years will be the most intense period of U.S.-China rivalry.
China’s main vulnerability is Taiwan. Pakistan is not a strategically vital location, and the U.S. has never considered invading it. If the U.S. were to invade Pakistan, China would gladly join forces with Russia and Iran to confront the U.S.
China supports the BRICS currency and has been promoting gold and silver as international currencies, with the renminbi pegged to gold.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

What kind of nonsense is this? Pakistan is far too big a fish to swallow. The United States understands this reality. That is why they prefer to rule through implanted agents rather than attempt a direct attack. Pakistan’s population is comparable to that of the United States, making such a notion ridiculous. The real tragedy is that Pakistanis do not realize the power they possess.

 

[Cash gk]

The question is, will they also attempt this against Iran, targeting the Supreme Leader?

 

[PakFactor]

The question is, will they also attempt this against Iran, targeting the Supreme Leader?

I don't see why they wouldn't, the precedent is there. It's the rule of the game going forward.

 

[Pak-Warrior]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I am sure this tweet is from someone having zero understanding of military / warfare.

A radar or any sensor has to be part of whole system of systems. There has to be integrated air defense and a joint command with quick reaction forces to do anything against a sophisticated enemy. The whole operation was done & over in minutes and most of Venezulean army / forces woke up after the US had already left.

The attacks on other locations were primarily distraction, only the attacks on pathway were meant to clear any potential AA fire. The real target was a surprise move (which nobody could have expected) of delta force going quick / in out to abduct president of Venezuela himself.

If Brazilian President give full authority & command to his own delta / special forces to extract a president of any nearby state, it can be done too. Why it can be done is only because no one expects any other state to abduct head of state of another soverign state. The extreme element of surprise can do wonders. No one wants to look that goonish and criminal in front of world and their own population. Your delta forces go in the darkness of night when 99% of the country is asleep, no one in their wildest imaginations can think that something that bizarre can even happen. But special forces on their mission knows exactly what to do, which path to take, which guards to hit, its a quick abduction mission and nothing fancy at all. Only If Maduro could have expected the level of criminal mindset of US Pres / CIA / advisors, then no power on earth could have extracted him. Yes they could have killed him but no way on earth could have extracted him.

The core element of success of this operation wasn't superiority of US military but doing something unexpected.

This US op was an cowardice unannounced attack in middle of night against a weak country, It's marketed by US as their military might to the world world for psychological effects, so all other countries / leaders fall in line. The whole thing is morally so corrupt that you can just can't stop hating the western hegemonic mentality. A country abducts a non-compliant head of state of soverign nation to do regime change and steal that nation's resources. Unbelievable !

 

[Musings]

@_Arabia_

China is not the topic here. Why do you always take every thread you venture on into a lesson on history? Stop it now

 

[Cash gk]

I don't see why they wouldn't, the precedent is there. It's the rule of the game going forward.

I'm telling you, even the vice president of Venezuela said it has hint of religious war against Christians.