I never understood why Americans think their military bases in Europe are any kind of altruism instead of what it actually is, military occupation and hegemonic vassalisation. Any form of European militaristic sovereignty was crushed by the US and always forced to be under the NATO umbrella.
The US created for two purposes. Keep the Russians from invading western Europe. Keep Europeans from starting another world war. First world war millions of soldiers were sent to the slaughter. Second world war tens of millions were murdered in addition to millions of soldiers being slaughtered. With nukes in play a repeat just wasn't acceptable.
You dislike that but we were successful.
The US did try to bring China and Russia into the fold but that was a failure and has been abandoned.
The first general secretary of NATO put it best on what NATO always was meant to be: "To keep the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down". If you actually look at what happened in the years to come after that quote, it perfectly fits into that narrative.
The assertion that "the US did try to bring China and Russia into the fold" is also quite acutely wrong. Remember when Yeltsin tried to join NATO after the end of the cold war, or how even Putin tried to integrate into NATO and the Western system? Who was it, that was vehemently opposed to that?
Even more so is the possible Eurasian integration which US grand strategy has always seen as one of the worst case scenarios for US hegemony.
You could call that a failure but you should assess on why it is one.
The US China strategy was also always very obvious, open up their huge population for capitalist globalization and keep the sleeping dragon in a perpetual state of democratic dysfunction and underdevelopment (just look at India). What the US didn't expect was the iron grip of the CPC on power and economy, fully rejecting US planned shock therapy. The moment China became a state that could even think about challenging US hegemony was the moment the US completely pivoted to an aggressive containment strategy.
You make it sound like the US has a constant single minded strategy, but this flies in the face of how US foreign policy actually works. US foreign policy is typically reactionary.
This was very apparent during Trumps tenure in which the foundations of NATO were being questioned. Even at this moment, during the current election cycle, we have a number of candidates who are talking about a more isolationist, laissez faire response to things, including the current conflicts.
The US, being a country with democratically elected leader, has on many occasions through its history pivoted significantly in its foreign policy as certain parties and ideologies gain and lose traction.
This is in clear and direct contrast to countries like Russia and China with governments run by small groups over many continuous decades directing specific foreign policy strategies.
I make these arguments here to clarify how this account’s propaganda attempts to function, using emotional arguments and other logical fallacies to obfuscate facts. See other comments here, that this account is the type of account talked about in the CNN article.
> Remember when Yeltsin tried to join NATO after the end of the cold war, or how even Putin tried to integrate into NATO and the Western system?
I don't, because that never happened. It is a baseless myth manufactured to fool western audiences into seeing Russia as a victim and blaming themselves for Russia's actions and not responding adequately. You will not find a single adopted foreign policy doctrine document, law or other official step towards NATO membership, unlike in countries that have joined or are in the process of joining.
Not true. In a military occupation, the occupier gets resources from the occupied net/net. Not the other way around.
If not for the US, most of Europe would be speaking German or Russian.
A divided Europe ruined the world with two world wars and global colonialism. Imagine what would happen if Nazi Germany had survived. The terrors of colonial Belgium would pale in comparison.
Please don't post nationalistic flamewar comments to HN, regardless of which country you have a problem with. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
It doesn’t. This is one of the accounts talked about in the article. Read through the users previous comments. Young account, all comments primarily focus on anti US pro China sentiment.
The irony in your allegation is palpable. Anyone not following rabid anti-china lines MUST be a sockpuppet, bot, shill, or whatever, it can't possibly be a genuine opinion, which is exactly the stance of the article in question.
As I said in another comment of mine where I was accused of the same: I generally don't comment, but I feel strongly about US-China relations, which makes me comment.
The speed with which this response was made is telling. On a comment and thread many hours old. Your initial comment was at 1am Central Time. Within minutes of this comment, at 9am Central time you responded. These are clear indications of a monitored account.
In many other of “your” comments it’s been pointed out that your statements are incorrect, and provably false. At that point it goes from opinion to misinformation, and propaganda.
One cannot pretend that China is not a totalitarian system built, with clear and consistent human rights violations. Where those who oppose the party line disappear. Contrast that with the US, where a former president is in a very public and contentious court case, with open coverage.
Totalitarian regimes such as China and Russia view democracy and freedom of speech as a weakness to be exploited. What they fail to realize is that truth wins out. You can only lie for so long before you run smack into the truth of matters.
Until and if China ever embraces the UN declaration of human rights, including the ratification of the ICCPR, its intentions are clear. China specifically believes that maintaining the party stranglehold on the country trumps the notion of universal human rights.
And please don’t reply trying to obfuscate the issues, throw other propaganda, or whatabout’isms around.
The support of a government clearly in direct opposition to freedom of speech, human rights, and democratic institutions cannot be supported in any society that values freedom and democracy.
It’s literally the topic of the article. The article is exactly about accounts like yours. That’s not whataboutism. That’s the topic at hand.
Obviously you can’t explain how you are responding to these articles at all hours of the day, within minutes.
> “I generally don't comment, but I feel strongly about US-China relations, which makes me comment.”
Why on earth would you create an account 4 months ago, then only comment pro China and anti US sentiments? Hacker news is not a place for political arguments in most cases.
In addition, you cannot explain why you literally spread false news and misinformation. In an earlier comment you stated specifically that Peng Shuai never disappeared.
This flies in the face of multiple international, indisputable facts. References which can be found on the Wikipedia page about her disappearance. The typical response then is to attack Wikipedia, or hand wave away the proof with something like “western media is bias”.
But I guess that's a controlled interview and she was forced to say that by her handlers.
At this point, these accusations are just sad. But I guess I can't convince you that I'm just a random German software engineer living and working in Germany that cares about Sino/US relations and propaganda.
So you’re a German software engineer who is fluent in Chinese, and reads pro Chinese “newspapers” from Singapore? You also happen to be awake at all hours of the day, and speak completely fluent English. You’re also a German who for some reason is extremely pro RPC? Color me skeptical. It’s also hilarious that you just did exactly what the top comment pointed out you would do:
> Claim to be part of a group held dear by the audience.
> Antistatement: Im totally against <topic>, but <propaganda narrative talking points >.
Btw, the interview questions seem very clearly aimed at creating a narrative, so yes. There were no personal questions, only questions aimed at supporting a narrative.
China has a documented history of such tactics. For example, state TV aired the “confessions” of Chinese human rights lawyers Wang Yu and Jiang Tianyong when they were in detention. Lawyers literally convicted of “subverting state power”, “inciting subversion of state power” or “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”.
Women coming forward in the US is hard enough, and women being silenced here is still a problem. Never mind a country where no state official is investigated for such things, where there is no free press to independently investigate these things, with a history of arresting and disappearing activists.
But let’s hand wave all of that clear and consistent history away, or pretend it doesn’t matter.
Show me an open and transparent investigation of Zhang Gaoli. I’ll wait.
Thanks, doggers. It had escaped me even after reading the article. There is another tell, now that I look that account's posts, but I do not want to give it away.
I think the goal is to attempt to instill what they see as instability in our democracy. Throw around unfounded accusation and attempt to sow deepening discord along party lines. They see the January 6th attack on the capital along with the threats to hang Nancy Pelosi as successes along these lines. This type of tactic is a lot harder to recognize.
Thanks CNN for informing us about the largest known online disinformation operation harassing Americans
Next up, China and Saudi Arabia chairing the United Nations Human Rights Council informing us about how the rights of humans are being trampled
We've banned this account for using HN primarily for political battle. That's not allowed here, whatever your politics are*. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
* as a matter of fact, I don't even know what they are—we don't scan the comments for that
31 comments
[ 4.9 ms ] story [ 78.5 ms ] threadClaim to be part of a group held dear by the audience.
"As a Silicon valley company founder.."
Antistatement: Im totally against <topic>, but <propaganda narrative talking points >..
You dislike that but we were successful.
The US did try to bring China and Russia into the fold but that was a failure and has been abandoned.
The assertion that "the US did try to bring China and Russia into the fold" is also quite acutely wrong. Remember when Yeltsin tried to join NATO after the end of the cold war, or how even Putin tried to integrate into NATO and the Western system? Who was it, that was vehemently opposed to that?
Even more so is the possible Eurasian integration which US grand strategy has always seen as one of the worst case scenarios for US hegemony.
You could call that a failure but you should assess on why it is one.
The US China strategy was also always very obvious, open up their huge population for capitalist globalization and keep the sleeping dragon in a perpetual state of democratic dysfunction and underdevelopment (just look at India). What the US didn't expect was the iron grip of the CPC on power and economy, fully rejecting US planned shock therapy. The moment China became a state that could even think about challenging US hegemony was the moment the US completely pivoted to an aggressive containment strategy.
This was very apparent during Trumps tenure in which the foundations of NATO were being questioned. Even at this moment, during the current election cycle, we have a number of candidates who are talking about a more isolationist, laissez faire response to things, including the current conflicts.
The US, being a country with democratically elected leader, has on many occasions through its history pivoted significantly in its foreign policy as certain parties and ideologies gain and lose traction.
This is in clear and direct contrast to countries like Russia and China with governments run by small groups over many continuous decades directing specific foreign policy strategies.
I make these arguments here to clarify how this account’s propaganda attempts to function, using emotional arguments and other logical fallacies to obfuscate facts. See other comments here, that this account is the type of account talked about in the CNN article.
I don't, because that never happened. It is a baseless myth manufactured to fool western audiences into seeing Russia as a victim and blaming themselves for Russia's actions and not responding adequately. You will not find a single adopted foreign policy doctrine document, law or other official step towards NATO membership, unlike in countries that have joined or are in the process of joining.
Not true. In a military occupation, the occupier gets resources from the occupied net/net. Not the other way around.
If not for the US, most of Europe would be speaking German or Russian.
A divided Europe ruined the world with two world wars and global colonialism. Imagine what would happen if Nazi Germany had survived. The terrors of colonial Belgium would pale in comparison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_II_of_Belgium#Exploita...
China in Tibet is an example of military occupation and hegemonic vassalisation.
None of that applies to US in Europe.https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
As I said in another comment of mine where I was accused of the same: I generally don't comment, but I feel strongly about US-China relations, which makes me comment.
In many other of “your” comments it’s been pointed out that your statements are incorrect, and provably false. At that point it goes from opinion to misinformation, and propaganda.
One cannot pretend that China is not a totalitarian system built, with clear and consistent human rights violations. Where those who oppose the party line disappear. Contrast that with the US, where a former president is in a very public and contentious court case, with open coverage.
Totalitarian regimes such as China and Russia view democracy and freedom of speech as a weakness to be exploited. What they fail to realize is that truth wins out. You can only lie for so long before you run smack into the truth of matters.
Until and if China ever embraces the UN declaration of human rights, including the ratification of the ICCPR, its intentions are clear. China specifically believes that maintaining the party stranglehold on the country trumps the notion of universal human rights.
And please don’t reply trying to obfuscate the issues, throw other propaganda, or whatabout’isms around.
The support of a government clearly in direct opposition to freedom of speech, human rights, and democratic institutions cannot be supported in any society that values freedom and democracy.
Obviously you can’t explain how you are responding to these articles at all hours of the day, within minutes.
> “I generally don't comment, but I feel strongly about US-China relations, which makes me comment.”
Why on earth would you create an account 4 months ago, then only comment pro China and anti US sentiments? Hacker news is not a place for political arguments in most cases.
In addition, you cannot explain why you literally spread false news and misinformation. In an earlier comment you stated specifically that Peng Shuai never disappeared.
This flies in the face of multiple international, indisputable facts. References which can be found on the Wikipedia page about her disappearance. The typical response then is to attack Wikipedia, or hand wave away the proof with something like “western media is bias”.
But I guess that's a controlled interview and she was forced to say that by her handlers.
At this point, these accusations are just sad. But I guess I can't convince you that I'm just a random German software engineer living and working in Germany that cares about Sino/US relations and propaganda.
> Claim to be part of a group held dear by the audience.
> Antistatement: Im totally against <topic>, but <propaganda narrative talking points >.
Btw, the interview questions seem very clearly aimed at creating a narrative, so yes. There were no personal questions, only questions aimed at supporting a narrative.
China has a documented history of such tactics. For example, state TV aired the “confessions” of Chinese human rights lawyers Wang Yu and Jiang Tianyong when they were in detention. Lawyers literally convicted of “subverting state power”, “inciting subversion of state power” or “picking quarrels and provoking trouble”.
Women coming forward in the US is hard enough, and women being silenced here is still a problem. Never mind a country where no state official is investigated for such things, where there is no free press to independently investigate these things, with a history of arresting and disappearing activists.
But let’s hand wave all of that clear and consistent history away, or pretend it doesn’t matter.
Show me an open and transparent investigation of Zhang Gaoli. I’ll wait.
Searches about this behind China’s firewall show no results due to censorship (not something you would expect if there wasn’t coercion going on)
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinese-tennis-player-pe...
Outlining her conveniently timed retirement, and absence and disappearance from social media.
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/olympics-pengshuai-02...
Easily found context, ignored by kkzz99, who instead dug up PCR state media interview, shows clearly the kkzz99 account is state sponsored.
Who, Bush ? /s
Not quite the example I would use as Chinese agents spreading “misinformation”.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
* as a matter of fact, I don't even know what they are—we don't scan the comments for that