Video and article (two separate sources). The US is starting to play Rodney Dangerfield to China's aggression - we can't get no respect. Duterte just called us "monkeys" and "fools" for blocking a small gun sale to the Phillipines, North Korea continues to threaten US allies and the US with its nuclear arsenal, and China is continuing its island building in the South China Sea to establish territorial claim.
Xi Jinping is consolidating power in the PRC on an unprecedented scale. Part of why and how he's doing it is that there is a lot of uncertainty in the PRC regarding the economy and social stability and he's playing the strong man card. I would still be very careful about considering him along the lines of Putin or as an existential threat to the US. Xi is far more pragmatic that Putin and while he is very obviously interested in power and protecting the PRC's interests I don't think he is reckless. As I've stated before there is a danger with looking at the the situation between the US and PRC in cold war terms. The ideas that countries are either in our sphere of influence or in theirs. The Philippines is an example of that Duterte is acting out picque over criticism of his human rights record and he's thin skinned and petulant enough to make reckless statements over it (reminds me of someone). Even before him though the Philippines wasn't fully embracing the US out of fear of the PRC and even though they felt threatened by the PRC in the South China Sea still understood that they had to deal with them on friendly terms over many other issues.
Yes I'm sure the Chinese factories making steel for Trump projects and Trump ties felt cheated. While the American steel and textiles companies rejoiced.
When it comes to some hawkish Republicans, it seems what is said is more important than what the actual actions are. I say this, because for the last 30 years Republicans get irate when a foreign leader says something politically motivated and nasty against a sitting President, and they always seem shocked. The reality (for good or bad) is that the sitting Democrat Presidents have in EFFECT given it back as hard or harder as Republican sitting Presidents after an insult.... the difference is that the Democrat sitting Presidents have usually avoided words and gone straight to actions. A perfect example is Putin. Republicans loved to call Obama soft and outplayed by Russia and Putin, and criticized Obama for being soft. The reality is that he hasn't been soft at all against Putin. The sanctions/impositions leveled by Obama has SEVERELY hurt Putin and Russia to a level that they never expected. We can debate whether the sanctions were smart or justified, but in effect Obama has hurt Russia greatly. We have seen similar events in the Middle East with Asad and Gaddafi. North Korea is another example brought up as an example of "no respect", but the reality is that Obama has only increased sanctions and that North Korea is even more vulnerable than when Obama took office. North Korea is falling apart. In Cuba, Castro runs his mouth about Obama; and guess what? Influence by the United States in Cuba is higher than it has been in over 50 years. The United States culture continues to increase, and the control of the Castro lead government continues to erode. Ultimately the Phillipines will suffer for their position if it continues.
There is no surprise here. When I hear Americans (mostly Republicans) claim that China or Russia are friends of the United States I just chuckle at their ignorance.
insofar as territorial dispute in Asia, post-WW2, China is following the precedence set by the Japanese, who had built a military installation in the DaiYuTai Islands in the East China Sea, North of Taiwan, west of okinawa island, and kicked the Taiwanese inhabitants off the the island I have yet to see you call out Japan for its aggressive territorial expansion.
fwiw, Phillipines has already suffered. Phillipines was done in by its rampant corruption. it has been the reason for the US closing the naval base US / Global MNC looking elsewhere in Asia---Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, China, Viet Nam---to do business
Because Japan is an ally of the US and China has been behaving as an emerging/recently emerged super power. Frankly, Japan should be able to build up its military and they can buy part of the US Pacific Fleet. I think the US building up its own assets in that region is counterproductive as Japan and South Korea are still strong and certainly more than capable of fielding a strong army if needed. Obviously it would be in the region's interest to at least come up with updated trade agreements. Then there's the N. Korea thing that is really biting China in the ass as the region's worst kept secret is Japan being a nuclear power and Mad Man Trump bluffing with annihilation.
obviously, ur ill-informed since time immemorial, only Taiwanese fishermen have inhabited these islands, which are closest to Taiwan. Additionally, in these treaties, Japan had renounced claims to Taiwan territories.: 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty Between Japan & Allies formally ended the state of war and recognized Japan's sovereignty. Japan relinquished control of or claim to Korea, Formosa, the Pescadores, Sakhalin, the Kuriles, the islands it held in the Pacific, Antarctica, and the Spratly and Paracel islands and, furthermore, gave the U.S. control of the Ryukyu Islands (DaiYuTai) and other territories, an 1952 Treaty Of Peace Between ROC & Japan (Treaty Of Taipei) recognized / referenced the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty; Japan renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan territories.\ then, in 1968, when oil reserves were discovered near the DaiYuTai islands, Japan reneged on these treaties.
So basically Taiwan and China have no claim, and your line of questioning has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread.
如果是真的，那么大 With Power Waning, Xi Jinping Loses Influence in US-China Talks: Analysts Experts point to signs of Xi Jinping’s declining authority, which undermines his influence in U.S.-China negotiations. News Analysis After a 14-day absence from public view, Chinese leader Xi Jinping reappeared on June 4 to host Belarusian President Aleksandr Lukashenko at his official residence in Beijing. The meeting was unusually subdued, with both Chinese and Belarusian media describing it as “family-like” and informal. In contrast to standard state visits, it received limited media coverage, underscoring its low-profile nature. These unusual developments—alongside numerous claims by whistleblowers suggesting that Xi is now serving only in a nominal capacity—have sparked widespread speculation about political unrest within the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) top leadership. Some experts believe that Xi may be losing his once-unchallenged grip on power—or at least facing internal constraints on his decision-making authority, including over key issues like U.S.-China negotiations. In an interview with The Epoch Times on June 3, Wu Zuolai, a U.S.-based scholar and political commentator, offered a detailed analysis of what he sees as significant changes to Xi’s standing within the CCP. According to Wu, Xi’s core leadership position has been notably weakened since the CCP’s Third Plenum meeting in July 2024, with a new internal counterweight emerging—led by reformist and moderate factions. “There appears to be a temporary central group that has effectively sidelined Xi’s core authority,” Wu said. He suggested that this reformist force likely draws strength from the political legacy of retired leaders such as Wen Jiabao and Hu Jintao, with support from select members of the Politburo and the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), the country’s top advisory body. “Look at the ongoing personnel reshuffling—it’s coming from all directions, not just Xi’s loyalists. Together, they form a diverse network of internal checks and balances,” he noted. “Many of those he previously promoted have been removed, suggesting a systematic effort to dismantle the foundations of Xi’s long-term rule.” Wu described the shift not as open defiance, but as a quiet rebalancing of power, driven by personnel changes and policy adjustments aimed at curbing Xi’s cult of personality and policy extremism. By Olivia Li https://www.thethinkingconservative...g-loses-influence-in-us-china-talks-analysts/
