. But if there is any prospect that AI development poses a threat to the social and political order Beijing deems acceptable, can anyone be in doubt that it would be halted in its tracks?

Why is this a valid argument at all? This absolute nonsense. Be very conscious here, there is only one reason the west is praising the CPC’s stance on AI. Its because they’re in favor of it, yet we’ve been here before, Did anyone forget the dozen a day articles about “draconian” censorship laws and how the CPC is evil bad dictatorship for requiring things like masks and ID-movement tracking during COVID?

Of course they`ll flip the script because for now China is doing exactly what they want. Nobody on the left should be happy about this, at least unironicaly, This is literaly “trust the plan” but capitalists using it against ourselves to justify their own garbage slop.

So we know AI is just garbage slop but if it was realy bad surely China would’ve just banned it already? Surely it wont turn out exactly like it happened the last time the CPC did a crackdown

AI will be so much bigger than this and no IMO there is a near zero chance the CPC will stop AI if it gets big enough. The only possible time is now or in case of massive public backlash, otherwise its pretty damn indisputable, if the CPC couldn’t handle Tencent having a single bad day lol, then they wont bother with their NVDIA size AI slop maker either.

The best we’ll get is some “feel good” laws like Chinese teenage gaming laws that barely do anything for the vast majorty, but hey at least they have something so their hands are clean.

This was never about stopping the factory though. It was about forcing BYD to comply with the local labour law on the construction site, I don`t know how you reached that conclusion. We don’t even know what will happen to the lawsuit though I wouldn’t hope for anything either.

The only difference in this article is some politician said fully functional by “end of 2026” while the BYD guy says “July '26”.

All it took was for China to halt Brazilian beef import for Brazil to cave.

So what you’re saying is the trade can stop whenever they want to actualy and the reason they don’t stop trading with Israel is they’re actualy assholes? Yeah I kind of figured that already lol.

God I hope you’re not looking at this from a China W angle because that is just funny.

Iran isnt willing to be the country that offers itself up as a sacrifical lamb for its “allies” of China and Russia, especially when those allies aren’t willing (or able) to use that opportunity to make their own moves against NATO’s dominance.

I mean yeah China and Russia can go fuck themselves at this point, but the ones Iran should be caring about is Palestine though, this logic doesn’t hold up if they thought “welp the groups we supported all either got bombed or killed therefore there is nothing we can do anymore” then they’re really stupid and completely clueless.

It was clear since about month 2-3 of the genocide that Israel was taking this to the maximum level as their greatest historical opportunity in decades.

Even now they need to realize once the genocide is successful they’ll be next. They shouldn’t delude themselves “oh its only another 3 years of Trump if only we can hold off”, Biden was self-declared the biggest Zionist and Pro-Nato etc. Democrats will be no less evil and perhaps even more competent than Trump.

They needed to stand up sooner and harder, perhaps the point is already past, we got here exactly because of the rationale you’re presenting here. Go look at the struggle sessions we had here over their pathetic response in TP 1 the Iran “non-retaliation” shit was already a huge red flag.

They need those whatever new Russian-Chinese fighter jets, hundreds of them sitting on Iranian airbases, they need a nuke “today” yet these are things that will take months if not years to achieve. They’re already behind, they should be looking at the situation with a deadly critical eye. The situation will get worse. Climate change will force Israel towards complete military dominance, it will be necessary for their survival. The MENA is one of the two worst regions to get hit by climate change not 50 years from now but like 10.

What is it with all the global south idiots thinking as if the world is still 1995 and not 2025. As you say, they’ll try to avoid the US which only leads them to embracing the devil and living in actual hell.

We only didn’t criticize China because it ends up becoming very successful and reaping quite a lot of benefit out of it (and part of the reason why China isn’t going to give up the status quo anytime soon), but when other countries try to play the same game, they get labeled as compradors.

I’m assuming by “we” you mean Hexbear users because there is no way you’ve never actualy seen left-critique of China in the past 15 years.

With that assumption you should remember that this community is pretty much the same as r/chapo. We already had the 2022 Ukraine war struggle section that pushed away most of them too and now only moretankiechapo types remained. The pro-China “movement” has been since ~2018 borderline unserious for a reason.

You must remember that this was also at the height of the anti-China propaganda on the west. Suddenly the propaganda went from “lol Chinese empty cities” to Xinjiang genocide and HK protests. “Uncritical support” was a natural consequence of having to battle this because seriously, why would you engage in good faith debate about China’s problems with libs thinking the CPC are committing “cultural genocide” by showing google maps false images of supposedly “demolished” Mosques or “concentration camps”.

Even today there is literaly no point argueing with anyone about China’s problems, you step into almost every other lemmy instance and its the same communism = nazi shit. People pre-emptively assume bad faith through experience.

Its not conductive to academic debate, but in case you mean western Marxism as whole though, I mean just look up the debate on Chinese imperialism, it goes back at least 15 years too.

Plenty of people have been critical of modern China, just not on these online spaces.

Not sure I’d generalize like that. IMO you’ll find very obvious correlations between the people who tend to use AI regularly because they’re living Dunning Kruger types who always believe they have the great “talent” or “the genious idea” but just need the magic tool to make it work, those who have been “forced” to use it at work e.g some programmers and finaly those that as you say just make excuses for it and may not even use it but nevertheless consume the slop consciously and happily(e.g r/chatgpt users) .

I’d guess is a significant majority of the average population who live outside these bubbles are far less favorable towards AI.

I think regardless of which side we take I think it is fairly safe to say the rare earth nuke was fairly underwhelming.

For such a last resort “superweapon” they surely wasted on a shit deal that at best, being extremely generous, just maintains the previous status quo for some short amount of time.

The question should be what other weapons are China capable never mind willing to use again that are capable of achieving the same effect?

China only used (one of?) their best weapons to just force the same death cult embrace to continue. Who cares about calling that a victory? I fear the US is realizing they can pressure not China but their partners and Chinese non-interventionalism is the best possible gift.

Personaly I need to see those Chinese J-10s actualy parked on some airbase in Iran “soon” before we even begin to see a clear and real change of Chinese FP forced by Israel`s aggression.

The difference is in the solution. Instead of investing heavily in and betting for a “technological breakthrough” to achieve “economic transformation”, the country can simply invest in social welfare and raising the living standards of the people. The Soviet Union wasn’t exactly considered as a technology pioneer (compared to say, Japan, of the same period) but its people were living well. I don’t see why China shouldn’t go for the social welfare route (of course, they don’t, because they still believe in the power of the free market).

China could have the USSR’s communism today, they’re already far more advanced than the USSR ever dreamed of. If that is your point I would agree 110%. I do not care for Dengist nonsense from 2000-2010s how we’ll build productive forces and then socialism. This was a damn lie, the technology came, the productive forces exist, yet all the Chinese workers are getting is more damn pro-capitalist reforms.

Its been 30+ years, soon 15 years of Xi alone. China is the superpower already, the technological advances are already more than enough to press the communism button today. On that I agree.

But that is not what you’re proposing at all. What we want is communism. Yet the mainstream consensus convinced you and the CPC that change is “necessary”, therefore you’re looking to support Capitalist social welfare.

Capitalist social welfare is just Social Democracy. As I told you before, these economists make appeals so China can trace back to to the same western development path without acknowledging that western social democracy necessitates imperialism.

Now for your own personal reasons perhaps you think the benefit of China and the Chinese people justifies supporting imperialism therefore social democracy is correct and justified, even though it demands imperialism.

I however do not and everyone else who would call themselves socialists also do not. The Chinese idealism of white washing imperialism as if they don’t support it is a facade that will come down eventualy(climate change). BRICS or BRI shit wont save them when the US comes knocking.

On that note it is sort of funny how we socialists are the ones arguing that China should be out there defending their interests while its the Chinese libs who don’t care and push non-interventionism. Yes the capitalist social democracy will just pay for itself is something else.

Michael Roberts unfortunately doesn’t know what he’s talking about on China. He’s ignoring the private debt problem, the local government debt problem and the entire complex array of government finances becoming deeply intertwined with the property market, shadow banks and the financial institutions.

You`re welcome to link any other actual Marxists and their takes on China which btw I’ve never seen you actually do. This is an ideological battle in China, not just of good vs bad intentions.

You can’t convince me or most other Marxists that the current retreat towards neoliberalism is good, again, you may have good intentions, nevertheless you’re repeating the arguments from people who do not.

If your solution is the same as their solution why am I supposed to care about good or bad intentions?

Well you see, something something rare earth minerals something something running out of bombs and missiles.

In addendun due to space, just so people don`t misunderstand, there are Chinese based, Marxist critiques of these reforms you can find online.

Here is one such critique.

Yu Yongding Defends Investment-Led Growth, Dismisses Consumption-Driven Model - Influential Chinese policy advisor questions effectiveness of consumer subsidies, pushes for renewed infrastructure stimulus

1. “Consumption-Driven” Growth Doesn’t Exist

The concept of “consumption-driven” growth is most frequently discussed by American economists like Krugman and Summers. Krugman claims that China’s long-standing “investment-driven” growth model has brought the Chinese economy to the brink of financial crisis, while Summers argues that China’s “investment-driven” growth model has reached its end.

When discussing the choice between “investment-driven” and “consumption-driven” growth, we must first clarify whether we’re discussing long-term economic growth or short-term macroeconomic management. When Western academics discuss China’s “investment-driven” model, they’re actually referring to China’s economic growth strategy and paradigm. How to achieve China’s long-term stable growth (development) is fundamentally different from how to achieve a specific growth target in a given year, such as achieving around 5% GDP growth in 2025. The former focuses on medium and long-term economic growth, studying supply-side issues; the latter emphasizes short-term adjustment, studying demand-side issues.

As a matter of long-term economic growth, “consumption-driven” growth simply doesn’t exist as an economic growth model.

Taking Marxist reproduction theory as an example, when all savings are converted into investment, the higher the savings rate, the faster the growth of total social product. Conversely, the higher the “consumption rate,” the lower the growth rate of total social product.

Taking Lenin’s reproduction theory as an example, at age 23, Lenin engaged in a polemic with the Narodniks in an article titled “On the Question of Markets,” constructing what was essentially a growth model using difference equations. Lenin used this model to prove that despite Russia’s poverty and insufficient consumption—with the second department (producing consumer goods) unable to develop—the first department (producing means of production) could grow independently of the second department’s slow growth due to the continuous increase in organic composition. Therefore, Russia would inevitably enter capitalist society, making socialist revolution inevitable.

Currently, the Chinese government strongly emphasizes industrial and product innovation, placing technological progress’s role in driving economic growth in a prominent position. In this context, one could say China faces a choice between “investment-driven” and “technology-driven” growth, but technological progress doesn’t fall from the sky—it cannot be separated from various forms of investment. Therefore, one could also say China faces a choice between “general investment-driven” and “innovation-focused investment-driven” growth.

The production function can be expanded to include factors like institutional change and human capital. Improvements in human capital are related to education, health, and other factors. If consumption has a pulling effect on economic growth, this effect should be realized through human capital improvement. However, the transmission mechanism of consumption→human capital improvement→economic growth requires specific quantitative research; conclusions cannot be drawn simply. Moreover, consumption that can improve human capital is of specific types, and the provision of such consumption is inseparable from traditional investment.

In summary, for policymakers, economic growth’s dependence on investment, labor input, and technological progress varies in different periods due to different conditions. Growth models in different periods can be labeled as “investment-driven,” “labor-driven,” or “technology-driven.” But regardless, there is no such thing as a “consumption-driven” economic growth model or strategy.

3. Is China’s Consumption Rate Too Low? Actually, Goods Consumption Rate May Exceed the US

From the perspective of consumer goods expenditure as a share of GDP, China significantly exceeds the US. In 2022, China’s GDP was about 70% of US GDP; retail sales were 87.4% of US goods consumption (including dining). In other words, from the perspective of owning consumer goods (cars, TVs, air conditioners, etc.), China’s consumption expenditure as a share of GDP significantly exceeds the US. Additionally, there are many statistical scope and methodological issues that tend to underestimate China’s final consumption as a share of GDP.

Therefore, after considering consumption structure and price differences, the gap in consumption expenditure as a share of GDP between China and the US shown statistically is actually far less significant than the data suggests. Rough estimates show that measured by goods consumption as a share of GDP, China is about 1.25 times the US.

This is consistent with what Michael Roberts had documented in the past, China’s unfair ‘overcapacity’

The rationality of this nonsense is to be found in the Western mainstream view that China is stuck in an old model of investment-led export manufacturing and needs to ‘rebalance’ towards a consumer-led domestic economy where the private sector has a free rein. China’s weak consumer sector is forcing it to try and export manufacturing ‘over capacity’.

But the evidence for this is not there. According to a recent study by Richard Baldwin, he finds that the export-led model did operate up to 2006, but since then domestic sales have boomed, so that the exports to GDP ratio has actually fallen. “Chinese consumption of Chinese manufactured goods has grown faster than Chinese production for almost two decades. Far from being unable to absorb the production, Chinese domestic consumption of made-in-China goods has grown MUCH faster than the output of China’s manufacturing sector.”

I have an idea though: how about we raise the wages of the working people so they have the purchasing power to actually buy these products at a price that pay the workers well? Is this too much of a radical idea?

This is a puzzling comment, like this is an attempt to gaslight the socialists and marxist community into accepting mainstream neoliberal theory. What you want is the very western based idea that you just give money to people, they’ll buy stuff and economy grows.

This is not how the capitalist economy works according to Marxist theory to begin with and arguing just based on the authority of the consensus is futile, I don’t know what you’re expecting. Marxists will not applaud “red painted” neoliberal reforms by massaging it with saying its about “giving money to workers” because this is only a part of the broader discourse in China.

What is at stake is not just giving money to the “poor” so they can “consume”. That is dishonest. The current mainstream push if of complete reform of Chinese long term economic strategy in favor of western led, consumer based mainstream economics. I give many examples of this below.

This is probably the biggest real threat from the US at this point and where they’re actually winning the ideological war. The economic debate in Chinese mainstream involves a dangerous amount of realy bad neoliberal policies and reforms that are far more destructive in the long term.

You can read some of what their cheerleaders say.

Zhou Tianyong’s economic reform agenda - Former Central Party School economist says dismantling institutional constraints is China’s ONLY way toward medium-high growth and avoiding poverty.

Zhou Tianyong is Director of the National Economic Engineering Laboratory at Dongbei University of Finance & Economics and Director of the Economic Accounting and Innovative Development Committee, China Society of Economic Reform (CSER). He is also former Deputy Director of the Institute of International Strategic Studies, Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (National Academy of Governance).

According to Zhou’s projections, China could maintain an average annual growth rate of 5.5% between 2025 and 2035—yet provided only bold structural reforms are carried out. These include fully removing household registration barriers to population mobility, reforming land and housing markets by making (especially rural) land-use rights tradable and mortgageable, directing the majority of income from rural land transfers to farmers, introducing private capital as the dominant stakeholder in state-owned enterprises, and increasing in the share of wages and household disposable income in GDP.

V. There is No Other Way but Reform to Achieve Long-term Medium-High Growth

3- Implement land and housing reform to make land-use rights tradable and mortgageable Legal entities and individuals should be permitted to engage in transactions, pricing, equity participation, leasing, mortgaging, and inheritance involving land-use rights. Both primary and secondary markets for urban and rural land should be opened to facilitate such activity. At the same time, land-use regulations and construction planning should be adjusted to reflect evolving social needs and align closely with the market.

Full registration, rights confirmation, and certificate issuance shall be implemented for houses built on land with usage rights held by natural persons and legal entities in both urban and rural areas.

The current system restricting market transactions of urban and rural land, as well as rural residential properties, should be reformed to establish a competitive land and housing market. Market access should be broadened, pricing mechanisms aligned with market forces, and land and housing assets made tradable and eligible for mortgage.

4- Implement household registration and state sector reform The share of state-owned assets in total capital should be reduced from 40% in 2023 to below 20%. Alternatively, reforms could follow the Temasek model by using profit margins as the primary metric for SOE performance. Another approach would be to adopt asset profitability as the core evaluation criterion, with most SOEs required to meet or exceed the average return on total capital. For non-monopoly SOEs, mixed-ownership reform could also be expanded to introduce private capital, which is more efficient, as the dominant stakeholder.

6. Demand-side institutional reform The share of investment by the state sector—including state-owned non-financial enterprises and government spending on infrastructure and public facilities—should be reduced from 56% to 25%, while the share of investment from the non-state sector should be increased from 44% to 75%.

Bonus reading: Chinese economy hinges on market reform & rule of law, NOT monetary or fiscal policy, says Zhang Weiying

“It is the marketization and development of non-state sectors, rather than the strong power of government and the state sector, that have driven the Chinese economy to grow fast and to be increasingly innovative. If China wants to sustain its economic performance, it must stay on the way to continuing marketization. Otherwise, China will fall into stagnation,” Zhang wrote in the Journal of Chinese Economic and Business Studies in 2019.

Again I have to point out, you’re making this hill to die on what “China needs to do” but without realizing you’re only sharing this hill with neoliberal western ghouls, Chinese compradors and old time Dengist hardliners who pander to the lowest class(imo they deserve extremely critical support for only some of these policies) while advocating the absolute complete destruction of the current CPC direct influence over the economy. They have all combined abandoned(at best) the communist goal decades ago.

Other famous Chinese economists have shared the same pleas for “reform”, some more extreme than others, giving with the “left hand” i.e improving working some aspects of the lower class spending while taking with right hand i.e further diminishing the size of the public sector and the CPC’s control of the economy. They say so openly, its all in the name of the market. Do you not see this at all?

Now you go do that in the name of “consumption” nonsense and then come back 10-15 years later with a bankrupt state with no political power to actualy continue giving out this money to the poor because the capitalists will continue to push for further neoliberal reforms but now they actualy own everything, you have nothing else to cut or reform away except these same handouts. Congratulations. The CPC finaly conquered the doomers and achieved what the Chinese liberals want, to become Europe in 1975 lol. No lessons learned.

We’ll see it could go further than some people are willing to accept. India was already publicaly admitting earlier this year that they’re reducing Russian oil purchasing exactly because of fear of these sanctions(Jan 2025) but then 6 months later Iran-Israel happened and now India is buying Russian oil at record quantities again.

So the first question is will the US actualy push India into submission finally? Maybe, I don’t know how much Trump actualy understands or even cares about how India fits into the puzzle in the conflict against China honestly.

The second question is China and really is this the excuse for another tariff war despite him celebrating how he just ended if? If that happens will it be “500%”? Almost certainly not, more like anything from 5-50% but the end result is still more squeezing and drawing the lines between those who are willing to submit and those who are not.

It doesn’t matter if Trump goes back or not, China is already making it clear they’re not in this to fight to destroy the US but just to embrace the devil so who cares. The US proved they have buttons to push and they can get China to compromise.

China was supposed to have the upper hand, the rare earth nuke is their biggest weapon yet all they`re using it for is to keep the same worsening conditions for themselves and everyone else. This is a weapon to fight the US into submission if they actualy cared, yet all they care about is keeping “good” relations. Loser mentality shit.

The stock market is already back at all time high again, Trump is feeling no pressure from the idiot libs claiming he was crashing the economy because “oh no billionaires temporarily lost billions” and then made it all back and more within days, “oh no the stock market is crashing”, the economic data itself clearly doesn’t matter to anyone. Not the market, not his base and not for Trump himself. The Fed is already under pressure again, it seems he can do the “crash the economy” routine every 3-6 months from now on.

Well, the question concerns if Israel had “air superiority” over Iran, and whether lobbing cruise missiles at Tehran from outside their airspace constitutes air superiority. I’m not really sure where the rest of that is coming from, but maybe you feel it’s worth documenting for your own sake.

We have evidence this was not the case, including and quite literaly the last few attacks on the last day or so. The point is whether you care to accept it or not changes whether you think Israel had air superiority or not.

Despite your disingenuous attempt at playing the reasonable card you’re echoing the same argument as the Russian chuds who want to ignore the evidence. You’re trying to shame us into accepting some other narrative as if that user was “wrong”. I’m letting you know the hole goes a lot deeper than you think if you want to start pointing fingers.

Maybe some other time we can both list off who we think is the stupidest motherfucker in the OSINT and “alternative media” commentariat. Not now. I feel too groggy. This does answer whether anyone has calmed down.

I said right at the start, if you have qualms with the OSINT community which we relied upon, you go bark to them not point fingers at users here. They’re the ones who need to “calm down”.

What kind of answer are you expecting when the other side of the “OSINT” community were literaly making dumbass conspiracy theories that Iran “let it happen” or that the B-2 bombing was a hoax basicaly(Simplicious) as we watched multiple instances of bombing in Tehran etc.

If you want a moderate position you need to bark at the other tree.

It is in the pro-Russian interests in the region to deny and deflect, Iran is using Russian systems after all, it is in their interest to portray Iran as both strong and independent regardless of the reality until the worst happens(Syria). If the consensus becomes that Iran needs better(Chinese) systems how does that reflect on the years of specialist analysts assuring us Iran had the upper hand.

Again Simplicious and his cohort are dumbasses at worse or dishonest propagandists at best wrt ME, maybe they can talk about Russia-Ukraine, but they’ve been lacking on Israel-Iran, I encourage you to go back and read his TP 1 and 2 “analysis” where he assured us how good it looked for Iran.

Ök how I interpret this is simply because foreign capital isn’t coming to Brazil as investment into anything useful in the long term e.g industry but rather things like commerce, agriculture or finance these are exactly the areas that benefit western imperialism the most. It shows up in the data as direct foreign capital but capitalists will obviously never criticize themselves for where the capital is actualy going towards, there is no industrial growth so as far as I’m concerned there is nothing to celebrate, though the mainstream does. High foreign capital flow but no industrial growth means they celebrate as the dependency relationship is maintained.

You can see here the IBGE industrial production data “Bens de Capital” = Capital Goods, first left column, 2nd and 3rd table from the top.

100 = February 2021 and latest 97% April 2025 its been consistently below that for the past 4 years.

I admit I haven’t looked at Mexico’s data, maybe they’re somewhat better here.

An index fund of Mexican stocks is currently up 14.4%, while an index fund of Brazilian stocks is up 14.22% year to date. Compared to the Nasdaq which is up 3%.

This is superficial in a bad way.

Brazilian stocks are up because the Index is top heavy dominated by bank stocks, which have skyrocketed since last year due to record high interest rate now at 15% with the Brazilian Central Bank saying it will stay high for the long term and perhaps even higher.

Capital isn’t staying in Brazil for anything worthwhile, the analogy is like wondering why the doctor hasn’t removed the syringe perpetually sucking blood from a patient.

The second point is the carry trade(loan USD in low interest countries, exchange and deposit local currency in high interest countries) is back and as high as ever for these countries, its why BR and other stock markets are up, bank stocks are up, if anything it signals stronger confidence on the western imperial core and a continuation of the lack of investment of the global south.

I’ll do my best to explain the very likely reason for this, its the Brazilian First Lady TikTok controversy during the last meeting aka “the Janja(her nickname) controversy” is 90% of the reason, Xi isn’t risking going through that again until I’m betting after Brazil’s election next year at least.

For context this is relevant as Brazil has been making several pro-US moves and an attempt to “regulate” social media including Tik Tok obviously includes many angles one of them being obviously the image of the similar move by the US which felt obviously offensive to China.

You can translate what she says but its liberal nonsense about social media harming kids and favoring right wing discourse, which is funny because she should be up in arms against Trump and Facebook(Whatsapp is the biggest social media in BR) not fucking TikTok anyway. Now you go and see if the global south are about to talk down to Trump or even Biden in the same manner.

In any case there was also an Tiktok incident earlier with a child that died from one of those Tiktok challenges.

Here is the timeline for the record, there is 4 parts to this story.:

1- She interrupted the meeting to complain to Xi about Tik Tok and ask the CPC to send a “representative” to help legislate and control social media. This was leaked to the press and seen as a huge diplomatic faux pas. Janja’s Comment About TikTok Causes Tension During Lula-Xi Meeting

Folha confirmed with two sources —one from the Brazilian delegation in Beijing and another close to the Chinese side— that Janja’s intervention caused discomfort among the Chinese.

2- In a press conference the following day Lula is visibly angry with reporters brings out some nonsense excuse that she was talking on his behalf.

“I asked comrade Xi Jinping if it was possible for him to send a person of trust to us to discuss the digital issue – especially TikTok,” Lula told reporters in Beijing on Wednesday.

This is obviously saving face nonsense, this was a business meeting, Lula is not really technologically literate, nobody knew this was a topic to be discussed(decided in advance obvs), there is zero chance Lula would interrupt to talk about something randomly like this. Imagine being like “yeah so railroads are good but btw can you send me someone so we see how to best ban TikTok” sounds exactly as batshit random as you imagine.

3- It is also reported he was incredibly angry during the plane trip back and reprimanded the delegation. Poder360(ptbr)

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) scolded his ministers during his flight back to Brazil. The reason was the leak to the press of statements attributed to First Lady Janja Lula da Silva about the social network TikTok in a meeting with the President of China, Xi Jinping, on Tuesday (13.May.2025), in Beijing.

Lula defended his wife and stated that the case was inadmissible. The PT member told the ministers that the episode represents a breach of loyalty on the part of his team, but avoided naming government members. He stated that he would not conduct a search operation. The information was published by the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo and confirmed by Poder360.

4- A few days later, Lula’s obvious saving face narrative was finaly completely undermined by Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Viera who denies the “CPC technical expert-representative” part of the narrative.

Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira said on Tuesday (20) that the Brazilian government has not made any formal invitation for experts or representatives of the Chinese social network TikTok to come to Brazil to discuss the regulation of the platform.

Things eventualy calmed down and new controversies appeared, but in Brazil there were people on both sides trying to defend the First Lady while some just felt it was not appropriate and Lula comes out as an idiot anyway caught with his pants lying even if understandable. Many feel it was not appropriate as she is obviously not in an elected position.

This was a relatively big controversy despite the overall positive meeting.

When China says “previous meetings” this is undoubtedly part of the reason. Remember Xi doesn’t like leaks to the press(e.g Tradeu 2022) and while it isn’t necessarily harmful to China in anyway, China values respect as their first principle for diplomacy and this was obviously very disrespectful e.g it reinforced the CPC as the “owner” of Tiktok etc.

There is argument that Xi wouldn’t be there just to meet Lula again though so its just another point on how BRICS fickle is incredibly pointless beyond being a trade showroom anyway.

Blursed memories

Its undeniable Biden affected negatively but if you remember she got almost immidiately a significant lead on the polls, at the height of that coconut or whatever hype wave, she even got some significant Zoomer-Tiktok support.

Shen the procceeded to waste all that momentum on many unforced errors. She has zero political instinct and no willingless to push back on any of the political advice from her campaign.

When the only reason she got a bump on the polls was the short lived social media hype, she turned to idk white female suburban mom vote getting Bush endorsement etc, so much dumbass moves she could have simply said “no actualy I don’t think rehabing Bush is a smart idea to the Gen Z and millenials that need to enthusiasticaly vote for us”.

Yeah no shit you try to bring enthusiasm by literaly getting endorsement from the guy who is the mainstream face responsible for destroying a whole generation.

Good at least if it makes the stupid ass Russian grifters stop pushing conspiracy nonsense about how Iran allowed it to happen or denying Israel-US achieved air superiority. Yeah no shit they allowed it to happen so much Iran is running straight to China as a result literaly just days after(as they should).

I don’t see their point here, making the implicit assumption we’re talking about the ruling class interests and not the general peope.

For Japan the key reason is their Imperialist ambitions. Japan benefits extremely from US backing otherwise they’d have to build a military that can actualy measure up to China. Japanese nationalists have already succeeded into pushing for their own militarism and this is only allowed at all exactly because of the perception Japan isn’t strong enough on its own. This militaristic narrative is only ever possible through the presence of US military in their country and as the US pushes the China bad narrative it naturally fuels Japanese nationalism.

Left to their own Japan would be far more inclined to seek peaceful relations with China and others. Economically its clear Japan should prefer China and pacifism, but the Japanese boomer led oligarchy is incapable of ever admitting Japan can no longer be a world leader and their ambition lies with maintaining the US perpetually invested in the region.

This is extremely surface level stuff you can find on google Japan hunts for dual-use goods makers to aid military expansion

Cultivating a home-grown defence industry was a key plank of Japan’s 43 trillion yen ($275 billion) military build-up strategy launched in 2022 to counter escalating security threats from China, Russia and nuclear-armed North Korea.

But it faces a challenge. Unlike some of its allies, Japan has no defence industry champions, such as Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) in the U.S. and BAE Systems (BAES.L) that depend on military work for almost all of their sales. Even at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (7011.T) Japan’s leading defence contractor, sales of combat aircraft, warships and other military equipment account for less than a fifth of revenue.

“If we don’t pioneer on our own, we won’t be able to keep up with global trends,” former defence minister Minoru Kihara told Reuters. “Japan should invest in research and development that contributes to national security, including dual-use technologies, without fear of failure.”

This is an impossible narrative without the expansion of US backed militarism in the region. The US is also a very strong guarantee over DPRK’s nukes which is self explanatory, Japan will never build nukes on their own.

For South Korea I’m not even sure there needs to be an argument made about how a bigger US involvement against the DPRK is necessary, as SK is just a giant Samsung company town, without this stranglehold on society is there any future for them?