The video below from WhatIfAltHist is a nice follow-up to the article yesterday on the impending collapse of South Africa. As it describes, the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) as an economic challenger to the West was simply advertising hype from major investment banks trying to make money by convincing investors to move their money to investments in the BRICS countries. But, the host claims, it was an illusion based on high commodity prices and the rapid, but temporary, industrialization and urbanization of China. And all, but India, face serious economic and demographic problems going forward.
Some related articles:
- "Dear Chinese Workers in 2023: Sucks To Be You"--Lawrence Person's BattleSwarm Blog. He links to a video from China Insights, but the main takeaways are that foreign companies are pulling out of China, foreign orders have declined, and the result is a jump in factory closures and unemployment. As Person sardonically observes: "It turns out that having your ruling party alienate the entire world with a genetically engineered plague, rampant human rights abuse and widespread intellectual property theft is not conducive to continued economic success."
- Who do the CCP think they are? The FBI? "Chinese Communist Party Demands Employees At Western Firm Show Their Support"--Forbes. The article begins:
When China began to require Western corporations to establish Chinese Communist Party (CCP) cells, businesses brushed off the move as benign. For example, when HSBCHBA 0.0% became the first international financial institution at which workers established a Chinese Communist Party cell in its investment banking venture in China in July, the bank stated that the CCP committee does not influence the direction of the firm and has no formal role in its day-to-day activities. But the CCP may have begun to flex its muscle in other ways. This week, the CCP cell inside the Beijing office of Big Four accounting firm EY demanded that party members wear CCP badges at work in the run-up to China’s annual parliamentary meetings. The presence of CCP cells in Western financial institutions may not mean that communists are managing your money. However, they spell trouble for Western businesses operating in China.
The CCP is a master practitioner of lawfare, or the purposeful use of law to achieve strategic objectives. In a recent legal salvo, the CCP launched several reforms to increase Party influence in the corporate world. In January 2020, a CCP regulation required all Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to amend their corporate charters to include the Party in their governance structure. SOEs must now appoint a Party secretary to serve as chairman of any corporate board, and establish CCP committees to facilitate Party activities and advance government policy. In September 2020, the General Office of the Central Committee of the CCP released a report asking China’s United Front Work Departments to spread Party ideology and influence in the private sector, including integrating Party leadership into all aspects of corporate governance.
When China began to require Western corporations to establish Chinese Communist Party (CCP) cells, businesses brushed off the move as benign. For example, when HSBCHBA 0.0% became the first international financial institution at which workers established a Chinese Communist Party cell in its investment banking venture in China in July, the bank stated that the CCP committee does not influence the direction of the firm and has no formal role in its day-to-day activities. But the CCP may have begun to flex its muscle in other ways. This week, the CCP cell inside the Beijing office of Big Four accounting firm EY demanded that party members wear CCP badges at work in the run-up to China’s annual parliamentary meetings. The presence of CCP cells in Western financial institutions may not mean that communists are managing your money. However, they spell trouble for Western businesses operating in China.
The CCP is a master practitioner of lawfare, or the purposeful use of law to achieve strategic objectives. In a recent legal salvo, the CCP launched several reforms to increase Party influence in the corporate world. In January 2020, a CCP regulation required all Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) to amend their corporate charters to include the Party in their governance structure. SOEs must now appoint a Party secretary to serve as chairman of any corporate board, and establish CCP committees to facilitate Party activities and advance government policy. In September 2020, the General Office of the Central Committee of the CCP released a report asking China’s United Front Work Departments to spread Party ideology and influence in the private sector, including integrating Party leadership into all aspects of corporate governance.
- "Russia Has No Strategy for Winning This War" by Rolo Slavskiy, The Unz Review. Starting off with the sudden attention on the Bakhmut offensive, Slavskiy observes:
Contrast this with the early days of the war where entire swaths of Ukraine were being colored in on maps and shared by Russia pundits and bloggers. Now, they’re coloring in fields and factories and little farms. And they’re trying to keep the same level of hype going as when they were talking about entire provinces being taken. Or, perhaps they will show videos of a tank getting blown up. Or a platoon of soldiers getting a grenade dropped on them from a drone. Very interesting footage, don’t get me wrong. We are seeing a different kind of war — a mix of WWI trench warfare and mini-Stalingrads.But it is undeniable that a certain “zoom-in” has occurred. At best, we’re talking endlessly about towns that have been fought over for months now.Having a discussion about the tactical level of things is a worthy pursuit in its own right. But not when it is presented in the context of a bait and switch. That is, we were promised large scale offensives. However fierce the fighting is in Bakhmut, it doesn’t take away from the fact that everywhere else on the frontlines, we are at a standstill. Furthermore, people are drawing conclusions about the state of the war on the strategic level based on tactical level data.They’re also making mistakes about developments on the operational level.I will give you a concrete example of what I mean. Bakhmut, even if taken, will not be exploited on an operational level. That is, there is no follow-up planned. I have been saying this for months now. There are no large concentrations of tanks and reserve troops to throw at the enemy once Bakhmut, a key point in the Ukrainian defensive line (or so we are told), finally falls to Ukraine. And now we have confirmation that Bakhmut isn’t falling any time soon by the man leading the fighting there. So, here we have confirmation that, Wagner, working largely alone, is unable to either tactically or operationally secure a win on this front.If Bakhmut actually were an important point in the defensive line and had to be taken no matter the cost, then you would see more resources committed to the area. Again, there are no significant resources being committed by Russia to achieve either a tactical or operational victory in the area. But if we take into account that Bakhmut is a political objective being pursued by Wagner to improve their standing in the political pecking order at home, then the situation suddenly becomes clearer. This may also shed light on why Wagner’s troops have been loudly attacking First Deputy Minister of Defense Gerasimov for not supplying them with ammo that they need. Progozhin is feuding with the Minister of Defense Shoigu and may have even attempted a soft coup against him.Bakhmut then, was supposed to be a feather in Wagner’s cap, not a turning point for the war.
And a few more videos:
So, while Chinese state-owned enterprises are required to include the CCP in their governance structure and appoint a Party secretary to serve as chairman of any corporate board, we in the West are, in effect, required to have ESG and DIE directors in our corporate governance structures, and put one or more POC on the corporate board of directors. What's the difference?
ReplyDeleteTheirs are political officers; ours are representatives of a new type of theocracy.
Delete