interesting : that a move be the result of unilateralism or multilateralism
doesn't imply it's correctness.
just my point against the uno
and why for china it's a special case
as the uno, the world is too small
due to organizational factors
making the uno a edge case
while for most others
it's the death of their own nations.
simply.
reference :
https://www.rt.com/business/627027-us-china-tariffs-framework/
and
this " Beijing has stated that it has a legitimate right to maintain normal economic, trade, and energy cooperation with all countries, including Russia, calling Washington’s pressure to halt Russian oil imports a “typical move of unilateralism, bullying, and economic coercion.” "
change f'ing nothing that they be one or all (but another in the case of trade relations (independent and sovereign). question who are they, 1 or many to dare to want to direct the trade flows of liberated china? they become hostile, that they be one or many or all, who cares : HOSTILES.
and uncivilized.
how dare they to interfer in the affairs of another one? to serve their own interests? it's remote occupation. act of war. then again the gradual in time and place against a declared HOSTILE source.
it's an old story, along the silk road or the sea belts etc.
who the fuck are you? or worst believe to be, standing in the trade flow of the Chinese People Republic. it's a senseless act imho. behind the words full of incomprehension and mysteries for some, there is the figurative. Standing against the freewilled and consensal flow of chinese and counter parties. woooh
a classical form of provocation and invitation to trouble for those responsible of such madness will ultimately end experiencing.
the famous nazgool story, one day they were buzy playing as always, when one asked the tea house responsible, please for something, and trade flow interruption. too late, they are leaving, "you will be back" ? A: soon...
taking a right over the liberty of another for reasons that concern not the others or what ever. again easier for the size of China, relative and multipliered, historically to deter such savage and barbaric and archaic behaviors.
and that they be one or all, (at least all they are all killed).
start with some trade restriction, and ends up where? sooner or later, the realization by the now considered as uncivilized to discover more in term of what is possible...
imho the 2nd war of liberation in the making, with the uno capture attempt.
uno simply a colonial attempt, that's it. "rule over".
all said.
who knows maybe the entire world will succumb to the venom of the uno neurogenesis protocols and conform and obey to the planetary unified governance.
name league of nations 2.0 or uno 1.2030 change nothing, the conceptual behind it. singularity of governance. and implicitly the submission of china to it or the alternative that i don't find respectable the singularity in china.
approach against all or one, easier :)
implies a clarity, specially on the surrounding countries that allows in the respect of their own sides, a liberty and backing as safety area against any, all but one ( would be nice) or one.
fuck off.
not your business.
that it be the cronycriminals of D.C. seeking wealth or the uno collective first control then wealth (in mass then), yeah...
:
no chinese.
simple.
there the constant crysis against the dummies in moscow, in the kremlin, who can't understand basics, lost in the grand strategy and submarine positioning...
i rewind, but the story of the toilet, the trade representative, he is right to be worried and more than ... troubled.
exemple concrete, beyond the hardness of the toilets, a whole business systemic, boom, nuked, go down, titanic style.
returning : the mandate of heaven, below china, above china in the limits of the double edge ring, further, it's others. not good. win win
better !
and why the fuck, many or one, jump in the middle of a "WIN - WIN" not a trampoline.
expectation, the afghan trade counter parties, are among the most reliable surrounding china.
where the constant courting of the kremlin toward the washingtonians, destabilize much much, many many.
and fundamentally it's some quite easy to explain : Fuck off.
that they be many "uniltaral" or plurilater or omnilateral (maybe but 2, china and the other) maybe
to illustrate they could be so gross to attempt wait for it...
sanctions and trade restriction between china mainland and hainan.
where they stop?
sooner or later...
great later better.
again in this case.
the "unoism" the belief system toward the acceptance of the unimaginable, a china blockade on china? where are we
but "ahh if the international community said so" or "one"
same same.
d
i
e
.
and their whole meme attempt of capturing for themselves by self limitation the right of others to kill, so only them even have this monopoly.
ridicule.
ingenious as weak as it is, illusion only.
again, invading pananma, waoo
specially already there...
to get an image for the less verbosed like swimming the olympic swimmingpool and pretending to be ready for the pacific ocean...
scale in a multi verse almost, really
and in their understanding they develop specific areas ending with spears, sooner or later they want to impose over.
not possible, madness.
too used to slave labor.
really
a mindset problem.
conclusion : again UNO = DANGER.
the fall trap of "unilateral or multilateral"
if they all, target the ... sorry. first then the surrounding and the rest.
no offenses.
imho there the line of understanding.
the progressive structural creep of the mindset of submission to others what ever unilateral (ex : empire of japan) or multilateral (league of nation) or omnilater what ever "all as one".
question of existence it self.
what is.
where the line of death , the double edge ring starts.
before no and after you die
be you "Efff
Bi
EYE"
or what ever meme.
so many have came before...
some with mega cool names, and long and yuge armies and funny foods.
my perspective sad that a nation like russia can't overcome its short history to be able to learn more from the continuity china is to this day.
think almost a phirao envoy to china, could his written received be understood in current highly educated chinese of today in those times writting.
as such that the russian officials for some block on certain created narrative certitude, not conducive.
as first the dialogue isn't possible as the quest to understand what the others, not easy, really means and what it implies, is blocked by the so called necessary needs of the "current standing".
ridicule
intellectual affirmative rigidity
vs china way, inviting dialectic, (as the complexity itself is so incredible really, a wide work in progress, PRC)
to even resay that the mandarin world itself is an explanation.
imagine the infinity POWER in this , little flynn? you fear isn't it? you want to destroy it, and enslave all...
gl & hf.
(you will need it).
wait for it, could be resaid as for mandarin as " the rice givers".
米 捐贈者
a constant heuristic or explanation will have imho always more appeal than a strong affirmation.
one will lead, the other impose.