Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ggersh who wrote (195736)	2/1/2023 7:08:55 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 217573

Curation (I do this before start of busy-busy work-work) (dated 10 years ago) (dated) The Modi Question by BBC (appears that the "world's largest democracy" has some issues in that Germany at one point had, or, the deep state trying to take down Modi for as yet some unclear reason, perhaps due to lack of proper engagement on the other question, The Ukraine Question" Part 1: bbc.co.uk Part 2: bbc.co.uk

To: ggersh who wrote (195736)	2/1/2023 8:19:54 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217573

Re <<I wonder how amerikkka would react to China>> ... depends on whether flashed signals can be demonstrated with matching indicated do-able performance 1. CSIS announced outcome of gaming recently making the rounds in Washington, and concluded PRC armed-recovery of ROC in face of Japan and USA intervention would fail but all teams would lose a lot of stuff and staff, and ROC Taiwan province would be rekt csis.org 2. Alas, after reviewing the gaming parameters report-launch-first-battle-next-war-wargaming-chinese-invasion-taiwan , Team China is signalling and calling out, for as it turns out, the selected parameters are between very-toxically-wrong to incredibly-fatally-wrong. I expect Mr Blinken to be told so in the course of February visit. Believe the trip should be important, especially if either side misses signals blaring loud, ,eating a replay of Alaska 2020. Had that engagement gone well, arguably the planet would not be in today's but perhaps better state. (2-i) for starters, hypersonic, manuverable, range of 1,000 - 1,500km, (backstopped by the DF21 / DF26 anti-ship ballistic missiles) meaning everything west of Hawaii is fair game), and has an air-launched version, meaning everything east of Hawaii to Pacific coast, and everything in Mediterranean and Horn of Africa also fair game) scmp.com (dated this day as pre-travel reminder-signal) Chinese military announces YJ-21 missile abilities in social media post read as warning to US amid tension in Taiwan Strait - PLA’s Weibo article says its anti-ship hypersonic missile has a terminal speed of Mach 10 and cannot be intercepted by any anti-missile weapons system - Commentator draws attention to article being posted by Strategic Support Force, which offers support, from cyber warfare to data analysis, for armed forces (2-ii) Let's see how the three boyz signal going forward, and truthfully, I think it all depends on the eventually outcome of the Ukraine episode which might be considered a hazing event tragically, for whichever side wins, whether Nato or Russia, would matter, even as Ukraine itself is not exactly existential in age of big balancing nukes I do not know about aljazeera's take of ... With the reputation of the new professional Russian military in tatters ... for if so, then I would suppose Nato sending in troops to mop up am easy decision otoh, and otoh, unnecessary. But, I remain agnostic and wait to see. aljazeera.com Russia’s Sarmat and China’s YJ-21: What the missile tests mean Both countries have recently tested advanced new weapons, but what could they mean for current and future conflicts? Alex Gatopoulos The Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missile is launched during a test at Plesetsk cosmodrome in Arkhangelsk region, Russia, in this still image taken from a video released on April 20, 2022 [Russian Defence Ministry/Handout via Reuters] In a public display of force, Russia’s newest heavy long-range missile blasted off on Wednesday from a test silo in Plesetsk, western Russia. Russian media said it flew nearly 6,000km (3,700 miles) before hitting targets in Kamchatka on the other side of the vast country. The Sarmat Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, or ICBM, has been in development for years and is designed to replace the older Soviet legacy S-18 missiles. These ICBMs were meant to fly around the planet showering strategic targets with multiple nuclear weapons in a nuclear war that no one wanted to fight. Both the United States and the Soviet Union built these missiles in the hope that if they each had them then neither would be tempted to use them. This counter-intuitive logic was given impetus by the findings of scientists around the world who told their governments that any such war would mean the eradication of all human life on Earth. These strategic missiles protected in silos and bunkers in both Russia and the US have sat there, thankfully silent and immobile. Decades-old, they need replacing if this deterrent is to remain credible, so the thinking goes. Both countries have embarked on modernisation drives to develop ways to defeat the increasingly potent missile defences their adversaries are developing. The Sarmat’s extreme range, some estimate as far as 35,000km (22,000 miles), allows it to fly the long way around to its intended target, bypassing likely radar and missile defence systems, striking its target from an unexpected direction. The huge payload of 10 tonnes means it can carry up to 15 nuclear warheads, each with its own limited manoeuvrability. The payload can be swapped out to include an unknown number of Avangard Hypersonic glide missiles that can travel further and faster, flying in an unpredictable path to spoof missile defences. The Sarmat’s short initial burn time at launch means that the US’s network of heat-detecting satellites will have a smaller chance of spotting the Sarmat’s launch, increasing the missile’s ability to surprise its adversaries and limiting the time they would have to respond to an attack. In short, it is huge, powerful, advanced and almost impossible to stop. The Sarmat is now part of a new family of missiles being added to Russia’s arsenal. Russia has also developed hypersonic missiles and is the first country to use them in combat. But it is not the only country to incorporate them into their respective militaries. China has also been working hard to create viable weapons for the 21st century. China: YJ-21 – missile and test One day before the Russian Sarmat was tested, China launched its brand new hypersonic missile from a heavy Type 055 cruiser. The YJ-21, ultra-fast with an unpredictable flight pattern, is part of a family of Chinese missiles designed to be ‘carrier killers’. Long aware of the potency of American aircraft carrier groups and their ability to roam the world’s oceans, destroying both naval targets and those on land, Chinese scientists have worked hard to ensure they have the means to defeat these heavily-defended mobile airfields. With a range of up to 1,500km (930 miles), the YJ-21 can deliver a large warhead, moving so fast it punches straight through the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, destroying it instantly. Normally air-launched from a bomber, this launch is significant as it blasted off from the type of cruiser that would normally be used to defend Chinese aircraft carrier strike groups. It is significant that the missile’s range is greater than the combat range of the US’s new carrier-borne stealth fighter, the F-35C. This will now force American carrier groups to sail closer in so the F-35s can reach their targets, meaning the carrier groups will be vulnerable to attack. Russia and China – closer and closer With a shared 4,000km (2,500-mile) border and common enemies, Russia and China have increasingly cooperated in defence and military planning. American intelligence estimates the two countries are closer than they have been for 60 years. Joint naval exercises are getting progressively larger and many Chinese fighter jets are based on Russian designs. Their common border means large-scale military exercises are easier to set up and have increased in complexity and realism. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated the superiority of Western weapons and the bloody deadlock of the conflict shows that cooperation between the two powers will be the only way to guarantee victory in a future conflict. Symbolism The point of these recent tests is not that they fielded advanced weapons but that they were broadcast and not held in secret. Both China and Russia want the world to know they have potent weapons they have not used yet that would be a threat to their enemies. Both countries want to show they are powers to be reckoned with. In Russia’s case, President Vladimir Putin is trying to shore up Russia’s tattered prestige after the debacle in Ukraine, reminding the world that Russia still has teeth. China is keen to demonstrate that any future conflict would come at a steep price and that it aims to become so powerful it would have a free hand in forcing its foreign policy aims on its neighbours, without outside interference. President Xi Jinping is closely watching China’s giant neighbour struggle to win the war in Ukraine. Russia’s failure to suppress Ukraine’s air defences in the opening days, its inability to effectively supply its military and the lacklustre approach to command and leadership are all lessons Chinese military planners will make note of. With the reputation of the new professional Russian military in tatters, any future alliance between Russia and China will be on very different terms from the cooperation before the war. Russia’s launch on Wednesday smacked of desperation, China’s was a stark warning.

To: ggersh who wrote (195736)	2/1/2023 8:33:57 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217573

Re <<I wonder how amerikkka would react to China starting a proxy war w/Australia, just asking? -g->> ... fair question, and I do not know the answer. However I do know what is happening in the Solomons . My overall impression is that Sino-USA competition, as long as restricted to non-nuke means, net plus for the world. There is a learning point for Australia to play a better game/ Dated 1 month ago, and all going well Re below, more budget necessary ... bloomberg.com US Opens Embassy in Solomon Islands Amid Competition With China Iain Marlow 2 February 2023 at 05:05 GMT+8 The US opened a new embassy in the South Pacific as the Biden administration ramps up its diplomatic presence in a region that has been courted heavily by geopolitical rival China. The new US mission in the Solomon Islands capital of Honiara builds on “efforts not only to place more diplomatic personnel throughout the region, but also to engage further with our Pacific neighbors,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement Wednesday. The US and its allies, particularly Australia, have tried to increase influence among the poor, small island states in the Southern Pacific such as Papua New Guinea, Fiji and Vanuatu. That has included aid, including Covid-19 vaccines, and pledges to help them combat illegal fishing in the vast waters around the far-flung capitals, as well as mitigate the impact of climate change. Why US-China Rivalry Is Heating Up in Pacific Islands: QuickTake The US launched a diplomatic blitz with the Solomon Islands in particular after a draft security agreement leaked last year that appeared to grant China’s navy a safe harbor. The island’s government has insisted it has no intention of allowing a Chinese military base in its territory. President Joe Biden hosted more than a dozen leaders of the island nations for a special summit in Washington in September, with the Solomon Islands eventually signing [TJ: regarding this pointless point. see next article] onto a partnership agreement after early indications that it would refuse. voanews.com Solomon Islands Says It Signed US-Pacific Island Accords After China References Removed

To: ggersh who wrote (195736)	2/1/2023 8:42:03 PM
From: TobagoJack	1 Recommendation Recommended By ggersh Respond to of 217573

Re <<I wonder how amerikkka would react to China starting a proxy war w/Australia, just asking? -g->> whilst gaming Australia for China merely involves buying stuff China wants, unclear what it would take as necessary from USA. In the same way, Marshall Islands playing Solomon, as China invests US$ and exports stuff into the invested projects to get back more US$, ala Belt & Road Intersting gaming, and we track such. Unless we watch we would not see such news items, as we do not see that Team India has another side to it hidden by the media until not. washingtonpost.com Marshall Islands, feeling neglected by the U.S., enjoys new leverage January 27, 2023 President Biden takes a photo with Pacific Island leaders at the White House, including Marshall Islands President David Kabua at fourth from right, on Sept. 29. (Susan Walsh/AP) MAJURO, Marshall Islands — The leaders of the Marshall Islands, a collection of 29 coral atolls lying halfway between Hawaii and Australia, know exactly why the United States just agreed to a deal promising $700 million in new support over four years. “It’s because of China. We’re not naive,” Marshallese Foreign Minister Kitlang Kabua said in an interview at a restaurant close to the country’s parliament in the capital of Majuro. It offered a view of a vast lagoon speckled with rusted fishing ships that bring in tuna, and the coconut palms that fringe the thin circle of land that makes up the Marshalls’ main atoll.

To: ggersh who wrote (195736)	2/1/2023 8:47:28 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 217573

Re <<I wonder how amerikkka would react to China starting a proxy war w/Australia, just asking? -g- this will never be paid off>> ... you are likely right, even as interim payments must be funded to keep the gaming going. the-geopolitical-aftershocks-of-the-china-solomon-islands-security-agreement The Geopolitical Aftershocks of the China-Solomon Islands Security Agreement The deal was likely China’s response to AUKUS. Now Australia and the U.S. will consider how to respond, possibly intensifying the security competition in the Pacific. Larissa Stünkel \| \| Credit: DepositphotosChinese President Xi Jinping, shortly after taking office, remarked in 2012 that “the vast Pacific Ocean has ample space for China and the United States.” The comment was made at a time when Washington was developing its “pivot” or “rebalance” policies in the Asia-Pacific out of concerns about China’s potential to create a sphere of influence in the region that could reach as far as the Pacific Islands. At the time, Beijing’s Pacific policies had been predominantly marked by economic engagement, including via the Belt and Road Initiative, rather than overt strategic considerations. Since then, however, much has changed. The de facto diplomatic truce between China and Taiwan, which discouraged both parties from swaying each other’s allies, faded quickly when Tsai Ing-wen first took office in 2016. Three years later, the Chinese government succeeded in convincing two Pacific Island states, Kiribati and Solomon Islands, to switch recognition from Taipei to Beijing. And last month, China’s political designs in the Pacific were further revealed when a draft security agreement between China and the Solomons was leaked, including provisions for stationing Chinese military and police personnel in the island state and allowing Chinese vessels to replenish supplies there. The news created much alarm in the region, especially from traditional regional Pacific powers Australia and New Zealand. Despite subsequent assurances by Solomon Islands’ Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare that the deal did not include the possibility of a permanent Chinese naval facility, both Canberra and Wellington expressed worries that the stage was nonetheless being set for a more formalized Chinese military presence in the southern Pacific. The potential security deal has not been ignored in Washington either. Plans were made last week for high-ranking U.S. officials, including “Indo-Pacific czar” Kurt Campbell, to fly to Honiara for bilateral talks that are very likely to include discussions about Sino-Solomon Islands security cooperation. For Washington and Canberra in particular, the prospect of Beijing becoming involved in security matters in the Pacific Islands has confirmed their earlier suspicions. As the office of Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne noted in a statement, “ the Pacific family” ought to be the one providing “security assistance,” with a clear insinuation that China is not part of such a close-knit “family.” Meanwhile, during a pre-election press conference in mid-April, Prime Minister Scott Morrison once again doubled down on Canberra’s concerns about a Chinese military presence, stating that it is “ a serious issue that we’ll continue to press.” On April 12 it was announced that Australia’s Pacific minister, Zed Seselja, would also travel to Honiara to discuss the security pact with the Sogavare government. While the White House remained quiet on the issue, a top U.S. official remarked that they were “ undoubtedly concerned” and the U.S. Department of Defense raised concerns about China’s “ security forces and their methods [being] exported.” After all, an expansionist Beijing does not fit into either Australia’s or the United States’ vision of a “free and open Indo-Pacific” and almost certainly threatens the power status quo that Canberra and Washington, and to a lesser extent Wellington, have enjoyed until recently. Enjoying this article? Click here to subscribe for full access. Just $5 a month. Ultimately, none of these concerns struck a chord with either Honiara or Beijing, and the deal is now well underway. In fact, aggravated by the persistent criticism, Sogavare eventually called out those who “ branded [Solomon Islands] unfit to manage [its] sovereign affairs.” China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin struck a similarly harsh tone when he refuted the idea of the Pacific Islands being “ the backyard” of any country, while reiterating that respecting national sovereignty is key to Beijing’s Pacific engagement strategy. Perhaps ironically, the overt critiques directed toward the Sogavare government might have propelled him to stay on course. Honiara effectively snubbed its largest neighbor, Australia, by implicitly accusing Canberra of undermining the Pacific nation’s integrity and only acting on their national interest of pushing back Beijing at all costs. From a wider geopolitical perspective, the security deal appears to be a direct response to the establishment or revival of larger Indo-Pacific security groupings. In particular, the AUKUS pact ruffled more than just a few feathers. Beijing, unsurprisingly, initially responded by calling the trilateral alliance callous, warning of the return of a “ Cold War mentality” that undermines efforts for regional stability. Reports in mid-2020 that the U.S. military was also seeking to augment its capabilities on Wake Island may have also contributed to Chinese concerns about being excluded from the region without some sort of counter-balancing policies. The questions which now need to be asked concerning the future effects of this security agreement include whether it will contribute to the overall image of the region as an area of strategic contention, perhaps even leading to additional security agreements and arms build-ups. The security deal has already created unease elsewhere in the Pacific, with President David Panuelo of the Federated States of Micronesia directly appealing to Honiara to scrap the deal. How will the agreement impact the already fragile state of Pacific multilateralism, in light of the possible fracturing of the Pacific Islands Forum with the pending departureof its Micronesian members? In effect, Australia, as the largest power in the region, may have to strongly reconsider its very attempt to reboot its Pacific diplomacy via its “ Step-up” policies, especially ahead of crucial national elections. As an Australian parliamentary report stated in March of this year, the country has much more to accomplish in building regional soft power and diversifying links with Pacific nations. In light of the China-Solomon Islands security pact, calls are growing louder for Morrison to demonstrate that Australia is not solely basing its Pacific engagement policies on marginalizing China. Finally, there is the concern that a predominantly hard power focus will undermine far more pressing concerns among the Pacific Islands, ranging from the ongoing danger related to climate change to sea level rise. Despite the 2018 Boe Declaration, which centered on climate change as being the “single greatest threat” to Pacific livelihoods, many regional governments remain worried that their island states will continue to bear the brunt of global inaction in addressing environmental threats. Thus, despite Xi Jinping’s words, evidence is mounting that at least in the eyes of traditional Pacific powers, a vast ocean may not be vast enough to accommodate the Pacific’s expanding geopolitical rivalries.

To: ggersh who wrote (195736)	2/1/2023 8:59:15 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217573

Followup on the <<Question of Modi>> Message 34176223 edition.cnn.com US and India to boost defense and technology cooperation as China threat grows Brad Lendon The United States and India are taking steps to strengthen their defense partnership, officials said Tuesday, the latest sign of cooperation between the two countries in the face of an increasingly assertive China. The plans emerged following two days of meetings in Washington between government and business officials from the two countries and include greater collaboration on military-related industries and operational coordination in the Indo-Pacific. Key among them are cooperation on developing jet engines and military munitions technology, according to a White House fact sheet. Specifically, it said the US government would look to expedite a review of an application by US manufacturer General Electric to build jet engines in India for use on indigenous Indian aircraft. Operationally, the US and Indian militaries would look to build up maritime security and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities, the fact sheet said. US Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks told Indian National Security Adviser Ajit Doval that “building alliances and partnerships are a top priority” for the Pentagon, in what she said was “the region’s increasingly contested strategic environment,” according to a Defense Department statement. Hicks said building the partnerships was a major objective of the US’ 2022 National Defense Strategy, which calls China a “growing multi-domain threat.” While the US has seen China building up its military forces in areas near Taiwanand key US ally Japan, India’s forces have clashed with Chinese troops along the Line of Actual Control, the ill-defined border between the two nations high in the Himalayas. Tech tiesThe US and India, along with Japan and Australia, are members of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue – known as the Quad – an informal group focused on security that dates back to the early 2000s. It has become more active in recent years as part of efforts to counter China’s reach and territorial claims in the Indo-Pacific. On the sidelines of a Quad summit in Tokyo last May, US President Joe Biden and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the US-India initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET). The meetings this week were the first under the scheme and brought together dozens of government officials, industry CEOs and senior academics from both countries. In addition to defense technologies, Washington and New Delhi would work to “expand international collaboration in a range of areas — including artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and advanced wireless,” the White House fact sheet said. A major industrial part of the meetings was an agreement to develop the semiconductor industry in India, which has the educated and skilled workforce needed to become a major player in building those key components. Additionally, the two countries pledged to help develop next generation telecommunications in India, including 5G and 6G advanced cell phone technologies. Washington and New Delhi also agreed to enhance cooperation in space, including helping India develop astronauts, its commercial space sector and role in planetary defense.

To: ggersh who wrote (195736)	2/1/2023 9:06:38 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217573

Followup on <<The Question of Modi>> Message 34176223 According to suspect MSM Economist economist.com The world’s most, and least, democratic countries in 2022 Our global democracy index shows several authoritarian rulers tightened their grip Feb 1st 2023 To read more of The Economist’s data journalism visit our Graphic Detail page. THE LONG decline of global democracy stalled in 2022, according to the latest edition of the Democracy Index from our sister company, EIU. The annual survey rates the state of democracy across 167 countries on the basis of five measures with a maximum score of ten—electoral process and pluralism, the functioning of government, political participation, democratic political culture and civil liberties. The latest edition finds that almost half (45.3%) of the world’s population live in a democracy of some sort, while more than a third (36.9%) live under authoritarian rule (see map). The global score of 5.29 out of ten, a rise of just 0.01 from the previous year, represents stagnation rather than a reversal of the democratic recession that began in 2016, which had seemed probable. One reason why a bounceback was expected was the lifting of pandemic-related restrictions in 2022. The widespread suppression of individual liberties, initially intended to protect people from covid-19, dragged down scores in 2020 and 2021. But any improvements in 2022 were offset by negative developments elsewhere. Moreover, China—home to nearly a fifth of the world’s population—only ended its zero-covid policy in December, having locked up tens of millions of its citizens for months at a time throughout the year. The government abandoned the zero-covid policy after widespread protests against it. But the state’s repressive response to those protests helped drag China’s democracy score down to 1.94 out of ten, its lowest since the index began in 2006. Russia recorded the biggest democratic decline of any country in the world, falling 22 places down the ranking to 146th. Vladimir Putin’s ambition of restoring Russia’s position as an imperial power is fiercely opposed by the West, but the condemnation by non-Western countries is by no means universal. Around two-thirds of people live in countries whose governments are either neutral or Russia-leaning. Mr Putin’s propaganda machine is attempting to persuade the global south that the West’s goal is to “divide and destroy” Russia. In Russia itself, the state’s firm grip on the media and crackdown on anti-war protestors contributed to an all-time low score of 2.28. Polarisation remains the biggest threat to democracy in America, although historically high turnout at the midterm elections in November and a broad rejection of candidates who still deny the results of the 2020 presidential election helped the country’s score remain steady at 7.85. Further south, a bungled coup by Peru’s (since ousted) president, Pedro Castillo, weakened an already unstable democracy. The index now classifies Peru’s government as a “hybrid regime” rather than as a democratic one. Elsewhere, multiple coups caused Burkina Faso to fall 16 places down the ranking. Failed coup attempts in Guinea Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe and the Gambia contributed to stagnation in the democratic scores of sub-Saharan Africa for the second year in a row. Western Europe, home to eight of the top ten countries in the index, was the only region to register a marked improvement in 2022. Its regional score rebounded to pre-pandemic levels, and Norway retained its long-held position at the top of the rankings, closely followed by four other Nordic countries. (New Zealand came second in the global ranking.) Turkey, the only “hybrid regime” in the region, has recorded a steep decline over the past decade, which reflects the increasingly autocratic rule of its president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The country faces a crucial election this summer that could decide its democratic status. Despite some global improvement, democracy remains under threat.¦