#India China border conflict | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

kendrixtermina · 10 months

Text

Our Governments are not representative of us, nor of our cultures.

The Nation-State was probably the single worst idea in all of humanity, and both the current conflict & the discourse around it really shows why

Before they came up with that in the 19th century, people may have identified themselves with their language, religion, culture or attachment to the region, but not by a "nation" of people thought to have shared traits. At the time of the French revolution, most people in France didn't speak French, and in 1900 some ppl in sicily had no idea what "Italy" is.

A while ago ppl were surprised about a farmer on TV who said he doesn't particularly care if his town is in "Russia" or "Ukraine" he just wants to live there in peace. But until 200 years ago or so, that is how most people thought of home.

Certainly basic xenophobia, tribalism & fear of the other existed before, there were, after all, persecutions in the middle ages. But the construct of nation has nonetheless made conflicts massively worse & more deadly.

It's based on an Illusion

There is this idea that peoples have always existed as some unchanging, unmingling "pure" group on one piece of land that is tainted or adulterated by contact with others.

Even on the left some ppl just uncritically accept this notion (see much of the discourse about 'cultural appropriation')

That was just never true - people have always been copying each other, migrating, trading, interacting etc. often new cultures arose or peoples changed where they lived; Borders shifted over time. And of course, culture evolved over time.

When people think that a state that is an illusion is what naturally should be, and try to adjust reality to the fake model in their head, ugly things happen.

Homogenous groups on a fixed patch of land are not the reality of how cultures work, but if ppl think they are, they enact violence to artificially create those homogenous patches neatly delineated by lines. You get silly disputes about "who was there first", expulsion of minorities and conflicts when people try drawing lines in areas with mixed populations.

The Nazis, the Balkan wars & Israel represent the peak excesses of the madness that can lead to. (and note that 20 years or so after the Nazis fell, tons of immigrants moved into Germany & the artificial homogenity collapsed again, because it's just not natural. Israel will never suceed at their homogenous country either.)

It leads to generalization

There's a really shitty trope in european newspapers sometimes that has much been criticised.

If the article says "Guy robs bank" then people will think he's a bad guy.

If the article says "Turkish guy robs bank" it will get ppl frothing about how immigrants are bad guys. In case of the non-immigrant robber, they don't even bother to write "German guy robbs bank"

That's how you see these shitty responses that when there's a war, random ppl from the involved countries get attacked. China does shit & ppl bother random Chinese.

With the current war, jews & arabs around the world are being harassed.

What can some ordinary shopkeeper Yacob Shmitz in New York do about Netanyahu? What does Khalil Mansoor in Berlin got to do with October 7th? Nothing at all.

This leads ppl to completely overlook all context to look at some ppl as always being victims or perps or otherwise all the same, regardless of context. For example I once heard an Indian acquaintance raving about "the muslims" & how they "want everything" & making wild conflations. A Palestinian living in Al-Quds/Jerusalem wants it probably because he lives there & probably doesn't even know about the contentious site in India, and he was treating as the same people that are wildly different: Powerful elites in Saudi Arabia & persecuted minorities in India & Palestine, arabs in the ME and southeast asians in Pakistan.

Later he went to a Pakistan-themes party & was surprised to wind that culturally they got more in common wit him than arabs despite the different religions. They liked similar music, food & sports.

Or people today feeling guilty & ashamed now for what the Nazis did. Did you, personally, throw people in gas chambers? No? Then what shame is it of yours? Everyone who did it is dead & buried & being roasted in hell if it exists.

To me, this completely destroys the very system of morality. Morality only makes sense if a person can only be blamed or held responsible for what they can personally influence & change. If you're deemed "bad" based on things you can't control, what's the incentive of being good?

Or, you can't criticize some countries cause people take it personally - it's an insult to their identity, their whole culture... which brings me to the next & imho main point.

It conflates people, culture & government

A wise guy in Iran once said that "the difference between you & me is much smaller than you & your government, and our governments are much the same". I wish more ppl listened to him.

There have been greedy leaders looking to enrich themselves pretty much since they invented agriculture. but they spoke for themselves or their supporters.

With Nation-States, it gets assumed that the government speaks not only for the people, but that is somehow represents their values & culture.

All this political & war propaganda isn't really what culture is. Culture is conventions and books and food and little stories and sayings and values that give things meaning. But when someone says "fuck the Muslims/USA/jews/Germans" etc the other side feels like the actual culture, the small & beautiful & meaningful & enlightened things are what's being attacked. Because it's conflated.

Leaders will of course claim to justiy their actions by whatever values are popular with their subjects, but that doesn't mean they actually represent those values.

Look at your own leaders: How much do they support the values you believe in? How much do they do lip-service to that culture without really living up to it?

So you get ppl seeing governments do shit & thinking "fuck all those jews/americans/westerners, they must be demons" and Israelis killing all the ppl in Gaza because of "Hamas".

It's that same logical leap of not just leaders = people, but leaders = culture & values.

Now leaders of course have coalitions of supporters whether it's a bunch of oligarch or a popular movement - active supporters are 100% on the hook for what the government does. The mocking song singers are to blame for Netanyahu & the red hat guys for Trump, and Biden... I mean, it's probably the DNC & some political establishment ppl who wanted him cause no one else really did.

But political coalitions =/= all the people =/= all the "culture".

The evil acts of government are usually the products of greedy leaders and a coalition of supporters, not whole populations or cultures.

The difference between people & political establishment has never been more obvious than now

Case in point: Mainstream news outlets are struggling to explain away why there is 15 times more pro-palestine content being posted on the internet, some getting conspiratorial or frantically attributing it to "iran propaganda", but the true reason is that, as surveys also show, no one outside of Israel wants this fucking war but a few old men with imperialist ambitions & weapons companies.

much of it is ignorance, inertia, & propaganda calculated to work on influential because because theyre influential & fear looking bad.

our cultures may differ but very few cultures would last long if they condoned this kinda shit. Different cultures may give different reasons & many have their flaws of bothersome elements, but i dare say most would on average come down on rejecting this.

Let's not believe the lie that being for this is based on any kind of values, not western ones or any other. They might say it is to sell their bullshit but it's just liars & cowards adapting their lies to the audience.

#feelings #nation state #state #countries #nationalism #culture #israel hamas war #israel palestine war #i/p #free gaza #free palestine #gaza #palestine #israel #germany #deutschland

7 notes · View notes

theculturedmarxist · 11 months

Text

This might be the real multipolar moment.

The American Empire has suffered two staggering defeats this administration, first in Afghanistan, then in the Ukraine.

China has (ostensibly) brought peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran, ending one of the central conflicts in the Middle East. The Belt and Road Initiative has brought American ally Pakistan more closely into China's orbit, and the war in Ukraine has aligned India's (which the US has tried to cultivate into a counterweight to China) interests more towards Russia. Turkey also pursues its own agenda in spite of its Nato membership.

American soft power has basically evaporated. Its influence in the region remains only where it retains boots on the ground. Israel is the linchpin of maintaining control in the region, and Israel's position will never be secure as long as there's one living Palestinian within its borders still drawing breath. If Israel goes, Centcom is basically finished.

If the Belt and Road initiative is supposed to define the major trade and economic engine of the 21st century and beyond, I think that kind of highlights Israel's predicament. I haven't seen a single piece of news or map or anything that makes Tel Aviv a central part of this trade network. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran though all are.

Israel has to secure itself and its position as a regional power sooner rather than later, because otherwise its ship is going down with the same wave taking down the US.

So we're looking down the barrel of the current global hegemon (and its nuclear armed cohort) staring down what is essentially a catastrophic or even existential defeat, with what looks like China, Russia, and possibly Turkey trying to talk them down from setting off what will probably be a nuclear World War 3.

If there's no war, then the Savage Autocracies™ might just have pulled us all from the brink.

If there is war, then heaven help us all.

#world war 3 #brics #israel palestine conflict #israel #palestine

7 notes · View notes

libbylayla1984 · 6 months

Text

The Fragmented Future of AI Regulation: A World Divided

The Battle for Global AI Governance

In November 2023, China, the United States, and the European Union surprised the world by signing a joint communiqué, pledging strong international cooperation in addressing the challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI). The document highlighted the risks of "frontier" AI, exemplified by advanced generative models like ChatGPT, including the potential for disinformation and serious cybersecurity and biotechnology risks. This signaled a growing consensus among major powers on the need for regulation.

However, despite the rhetoric, the reality on the ground suggests a future of fragmentation and competition rather than cooperation.

As multinational communiqués and bilateral talks take place, an international framework for regulating AI seems to be taking shape. But a closer look at recent executive orders, legislation, and regulations in the United States, China, and the EU reveals divergent approaches and conflicting interests. This divergence in legal regimes will hinder cooperation on critical aspects such as access to semiconductors, technical standards, and the regulation of data and algorithms.

The result is a fragmented landscape of warring regulatory blocs, undermining the lofty goal of harnessing AI for the common good.

youtube

Cold Reality vs. Ambitious Plans

While optimists propose closer international management of AI through the creation of an international panel similar to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the reality is far from ideal. The great powers may publicly express their desire for cooperation, but their actions tell a different story. The emergence of divergent legal regimes and conflicting interests points to a future of fragmentation and competition rather than unified global governance.

The Chip War: A High-Stakes Battle

The ongoing duel between China and the United States over global semiconductor markets is a prime example of conflict in the AI landscape. Export controls on advanced chips and chip-making technology have become a battleground, with both countries imposing restrictions. This competition erodes free trade, sets destabilizing precedents in international trade law, and fuels geopolitical tensions.

The chip war is just one aspect of the broader contest over AI's necessary components, which extends to technical standards and data regulation.

Technical Standards: A Divided Landscape

Technical standards play a crucial role in enabling the use and interoperability of major technologies. The proliferation of AI has heightened the importance of standards to ensure compatibility and market access. Currently, bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union and the International Organization for Standardization negotiate these standards.

However, China's growing influence in these bodies, coupled with its efforts to promote its own standards through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, is challenging the dominance of the United States and Europe. This divergence in standards will impede the diffusion of new AI tools and hinder global solutions to shared challenges.

Data: The Currency of AI

Data is the lifeblood of AI, and access to different types of data has become a competitive battleground. Conflict over data flows and data localization is shaping how data moves across national borders. The United States, once a proponent of free data flows, is now moving in the opposite direction, while China and India have enacted domestic legislation mandating data localization.

This divergence in data regulation will impede the development of global solutions and exacerbate geopolitical tensions.

Algorithmic Transparency: A Contested Terrain

The disclosure of algorithms that underlie AI systems is another area of contention. Different countries have varying approaches to regulating algorithmic transparency, with the EU's proposed AI Act requiring firms to provide government agencies access to certain models, while the United States has a more complex and inconsistent approach. As countries seek to regulate algorithms, they are likely to prohibit firms from sharing this information with other governments, further fragmenting the regulatory landscape.

The vision of a unified global governance regime for AI is being undermined by geopolitical realities. The emerging legal order is characterized by fragmentation, competition, and suspicion among major powers. This fragmentation poses risks, allowing dangerous AI models to be developed and disseminated as instruments of geopolitical conflict.

It also hampers the ability to gather information, assess risks, and develop global solutions. Without a collective effort to regulate AI, the world risks losing the potential benefits of this transformative technology and succumbing to the pitfalls of a divided landscape.

2 notes · View notes

potteresque-ire · 2 years

Text

The Big Politics Meta

0. Introduction; content notes and warning 1. The Boring Overview: 3rd Time is the Charm? 2. The Political Legacy of 2/27: A Hypothesis >> 3. Case Report of a Traffic Robbery, Committed October, 2020 4. Two Stories about a State-approved, Top Traffic Star 5. Afterthought: The Big Environment

(Below the Cut — 3. Case Report of a Traffic Robbery, Committed October, 2020)

Professor 沈逸 Shen Yi deserves an introduction.

He is a professor of internal relations and Director of the Centre of Cyberspace Governance at Fudan University, one of the most prestigious universities in China. Known as an expert on “the United States problem”, Prof S also holds the honour of being denied entry into the U.S. by the Trump administration in 2018, for suspicion of espionage. He is an influencer of the nationalistic persuasion, not only for netizens but also, supposedly, for President Xi. Rumour has it that Prof S is a 內参, i.e. he collections information and writes analyses for the President to read.

Prof S’s personality is also worth an introduction, and there is no better example than what happened in May, 2021, when India had a surge of COVID deaths. 長安網, the Weibo account of the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission (which oversees all legal enforcement authorities in China including the police force), posted the following on its blog:

The text of this 2021/05/01 Weibo post by 長安網 said “China lighting a fire vs India lighting a fire”. The left photo showed the launching of the Chinese rocket LM-8; the right photo showed a mass cremation of COVID deaths in India. The tag was # INDIA’S NEW COVID CASE COUNT EXCEEDS 400,000. (Source)

It caused an outcry among a significant fraction of netizens, who thought the post went too far. No matter how much border conflict there was between China and India, they opined, deaths from causes like COVID shouldn’t be used for jokes, for propaganda. The post was deleted after it caught attention internationally, and it sparked a “debate” between Prof S, and the editor of the State Tabloid Global Times then, 胡錫進 Hu Xijin. The reason why the word debate was in quotation marks was because Prof S and Hu didn’t actually disagree on a critical point — India deserved the deaths, the suffering. The difference in opinion between them was whether the government should spell out that sentiment, and made it known to the world.

Hu believed the answer was no. Official blogs representing the state should exercise restraint, he believed, 高舉人道主義大旗，表達對印度的同情，將中國社會牢牢置於��義的高地上 “raise the flag of humanitarianism up high, show sympathy to India and put the Chinese society on the moral high ground (in the eyes of the international community).” To put it simply, Hu believed the government should pretend to care for show.

And here’s the even more ... enlightening opinion from Prof S:

“These photos are pretty good. Don’t get me wrong, humanitarianism, ‘community with a shared destiny’ (Pie note: a phrase from President Xi that means humankind shares the same future) are all needed. At the same time, (showing) temper against the kind of coquettish cheap goods like India is also needed. As to all the saint mother whores, if you want to get sentimental, please go to India to burn some wood.”

A tiny lesson on Chinese slangs: cheap goods 賤貨 is a derogatory term customarily used to degrade women, meaning roughly the same as “bitch”. Saint mother whore 聖母婊 is an equally derogatory term used to insult people who have expressed a more humanitarian world view, mocking them as being so overflowing with love that they don’t indiscriminate to whom they show affection, much like prostitutes. Prof S used the former slang to describe India, and the latter, the sympathising, outraged netizens.

I hope this paints a picture of how Prof S exudes charm (or just … exudes). For all his shiny titles and oration skills, however, Prof S is as well known among Chinese netizens for being something else.

Prof S is a famous Gg Anti.

To understand why that is, we turn back the clock another seven months, to October, 2020. There was an incident involving Gg’s birthday celebration that year, one that, if c-turtles have to refer to it, they call it 川美事件 The Incident of the Sichuan Fine Arts Institute. i-Turtles who have been around longer probably remember that incident as well. Essentially, KaiXiaoZao — you know, the rice box meal Gg endorses? — planned to have to a drone exhibition near the school to celebrate Gg’s birthday. However, it had to cancel the event at the last minute due to COVID and crowd control concerns. Gg fans were already in attendance, and they stayed for a short while, enjoyed a bit of fun.

But the gathering, the celebration was soon re-painted by antis as Gg fans disturbing the peace of the school and also, them defiling the space. In truth, Gg fans were in a public shopping area outside the premise of the school proper, and the graffiti of Gg’s name shown as evidence of the defiling was not only an hour’s distance away, but on a graffiti wall that welcomed anyone to write and draw on it.

Antis and fans fought, and given this was a few short months after 2 27, the inaccurate retelling of the event spread.

Luckily, a local Chongqing TV station stood up for their Chongqing son, investigated and cleared the name of Gg fans, and by extension, Gg. Weibo censored 28 accounts for spreading misinformation, silenced them for fifteen days. People’s Daily and several other state media reblogged the TV investigation, as well as the doled-out punishment online. In three weeks, the police would confirm that no illegal activities had occurred that evening.

That was the start and end of The Incident of the Sichuan Fine Arts Institute. But there was actually a side story, a subplot …

Enter Prof S. The day after the TV station and Weibo cleared the name of Gg’s fans, he commented on the post by Weibo that had announced the censoring, opined that Gg’s fandom needed to be 有效治理 effectively governed, or managed — joining the sentiment of Gg antis that Weibo had only stood by Gg’s side because Gg gave it money. (Which is, by the way, a garden-variety accusation in c-ent fandoms; almost every fan war in c-ent involved accusing stars of bribing or paying something, be it a platform, “Capital”, YXHs, water army etc)

(c-fans confrontations are often verbally violent, but rarely verbally innovative).

Then, he happened upon the following tweet on Twitter with a photo of Gg’s birthday gathering, and posted it on his Weibo with a comment:

“Interesting. Activities of fans of a certain star has been interpreted by foreign media as an illegal, Tibetan Independence activity. 😜 What’s going on?”

Please read the English text of the tweet as well. SCAFI stands for Sichuan Fine Arts Institute, the location of the birthday gathering.

Giving a tweet like this one any political weight defies common sense. If any form of assembly for the alleged cause had broken out within mainland China, every international news media would have been on it, not only a Twitter account that, by the way, had “gamer” in its profile that could be verified with mere minutes of scrolling. The tweet itself was buzz words galore, as if inserting more politically-sensitive words would boost its credibility, when the effect was exactly the opposite.

For one, the evidence it presented to support the claim that the gathering was for Tibetan Independence was … SCAFI being “not far from Tibet”. Even if we discount the obvious leap of logic, the distance between Chongqing and Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, is slightly longer than … from Berlin, Germany to Istanbul, Turkey.

Just saying. (Source: Google)

Umbrella revolution was even further, geographically and culturally: it was the name of the protest in Hong Kong in 2014.

This tweet might have been able to trick someone whose understandings of English and politics were both very limited — but an international relations professor like Prof S? Unless he was a fluke all the way, the chance of him truly believing in this tweet was infinitesimal.

Still, he posted it, and added more misinformation by calling the account “foreign media”.

The response Prof S evoked was predictable. Gg’s fans came to him, some tried to explain and others, in a manner customary of their fandom culture, scolded and insulted Prof S as if he had been just another fandom anti. Meanwhile, Prof S provoked Gg’s fans further, reminded his readers that “cyberspace governance” was his speciality (one of his official positions in Fudan University), and “performing risk assessment” for the kind of activities that could “possibly lead to Color Revolution” — with “the kind of activities” referring to Gg’s birthday gathering — was the focus of his academic research (Source):

In China, this is an awful thing to say about anyone without proof.

“Color Revolution”, which referred to the series of pro-democracy, street-level uprisings in the former Soviet bloc in the early 2000s, is a term heavily used in the Chinese political rhetoric. The rhetoric, which is shared by countries like Russia and Vietnam, is that Western countries — in particular, the United States — orchestrate these popular movements in attempts to overthrow the local governments. Hence, the propaganda surrounding the Hong Kong protests, for example, has involved the CIA secretly handing out money to millions of Hong Kongers to march; and the protests themselves have been referred to as Color Revolutions by the state media. President Xi himself is a frequent user of the term, and is thought to be obsessed with it.

An accusation of starting a Colour Revolution is, therefore, very serious. It’s the equivalent to saying whoever is starting the revolution is colluding with foreign powers, and attempting subversion. Overthrowing the Chinese government.

The defence from Gg fans necessarily escalated. Some, being young, angry and worried and unfamiliar with the numerous political red lines in their country, said things that were, frankly, … much better left unsaid. Melon eaters gathered. “Prof S vs Gg fans” was on the verge of 出圈 Exiting the Circle — became a topic of popular interest, instead of fandom-limited interest. The question by Prof S, 你是什麼粉? “What fan are you?” — the question he eventually asked everyone who challenged him, whether they were fans, or passerbys concerned with such a serious allegation having being thrown at young fans, made it onto the hot search. Some Gg fans realised by then that this Prof S was no ordinary anti, that he was a well-known political influencer and asked fellow fans to immediately stop their defence, but it was too late.

Gg anti’s from 2 27 flocked to Prof S’s social media spaces to be his followers, excited that they had gained someone so important on their side. While this was all happening, Chongqing police formally cleared Gg fans from any wrongdoings during the birthday gathering on October 21st. Five days later, on October 26th, Prof S made a faux-pas in the eyes of the fraction of antis who had joined 2 27 as protest to the fic reporting. He pointed to the same fic associated with 2 27, tagged CCTV, Chongqing cyberpolice and claimed that that was the characterisation (referring to M/M CPs) that made Gg famous.

To put it differently: Prof S reported.

This is of note, because it raised a question — had Prof S been even truly familiar with 2 27 before, and along that, the supposed ”dangers” of Gg’s fandom that he was claiming required “effective governance”? Joining the reporting of the fic in October 2020 — wasn’t that a little ... late?

In all cases, this reporting post was, of course, incendiary to both the fans and antis. They came to his blog again, another big argument was about to begin, and …

Prof S deleted everything related to Gg in his blog. In fact, he went so far as to make his blog private for a week. He was tired of it, he explained, and the deletion was his own decision (ie, he wasn’t censored by Weibo). The graphic he used tor the explanation post included the phrase 說正事專用 — a popular phrase meaning “for serious business”, implying that talking about Gg and his fandom wasn’t serious enough to worth his time and effort anymore:

And this marked the end of the side story of the Incident of the Sichuan Fine Arts Institute, the 2020 birthday gathering.

Gg fans, per their custom of not talking about politics, never mention it again. The antis, meanwhile, continue to follow Prof S as their spiritual leader, joining the ranks of nationalistic “Little Pinks” that were originally his audience. After the mass cancellation of celebrities via the Clear & Bright Campaign in summer 2021, they went to him, dismayed that the only “casualty” associated with Gg was the temporary silencing of one of Gg’s Big Fans. In the ensuing conversations between Prof S and the antis, Prof S pointed out that as far as he could tell, GG didn’t have any background — ie., Gg didn’t have any connections in the upper echelons of the government, and/or the business moguls. And the issue at hand — the continued survival of Gg and his fandom — was the consequence of “(Gg’s) monopoly on the platforms”, “tens of millions of PR money”, “a MCN (multichannel network) ecosystem that has remained unregulated” (MCNs in China, more often associated with net influencers and their e-commerce live-streaming, are also involved in short video production — including short videos that spread rumours and false content), “a fandom with basic, self-organisational ability”, “active Big Fan(s) (whose existence and activities are) based on profits”,”a purely symbolised star image” (ie, Gg being viewed as a symbol, an image, instead of a real person), and “a completely new, inexperienced management”:

The thing is, there is truth in what Prof S said, in that the listed elements: PR, MCN, the heavy profits associated with fandom and everything associated with stardom, really, have been widely considered as important building blocks of the c-ent we know today, and the causes of much of its woes. C-fans are aware of that. Most of us overseas fans, too, have heard of YXHs and water armies, for example, which is part of PR, and the havoc they can raise. While PR has, indeed, been used for (excessive) hyping and initiating fan wars, however, it has also become increasily necessary because of the existence of antis — ie, of people precisely like Prof S and his audience. Stars are also far from the only people who hire and pay for PR. Investors and production companies who have hired the stars for to-be-aired projects have equal, if not greater concerns about the stars’ reputation, and in the power balance between them and the stars who have yet to get famous or have just got famous (like Gg in early 2020), they have a clear upper hand — hence, they are more likely to be controlling the PR message than the stars themselves.

In all cases, the involvement of these elements is by no means restricted to a star or two, or the top traffic stars.

So, why make Gg’s fandom the target? Here was Prof S’s response:

(Underlined in red) “Gg fans are the most archetypical of the complete loss-of-control of fan economy. It is also the most difficult to put to order, and so, the effects of bringing it to order will have the most significance as a benchmark.”

Prof S wanted to make an example of Gg and his fandom, and he wasn’t shy to say it.

Not that this statement really mattered, but here are some questions I have about it, from a simple logical standpoint: If Gg’s top traffic status was purely the outcome of a fan economy run amok, surely there has got to be an assembly line of top traffic stars by now, hasn’t it? And a galaxy full of them taking over Gg’s place? After all, according to this theory, all it takes for the next Gg is happen is to invest a lot of money. Gg has no background — Prof S said so himself. Gg’s rise to stardom also happened after 2018, after Fan Bing Bing’s tax evasion case and the draining of c-ent capital resulting from the government’s aggressive, retrospect tax collection; Gg’s income has therefore been far less compared to stars of equivalent popularity from several years ago. 2 27 also happened a mere six months after Gg’s rise, i.e. Gg had yet to accumulate significant wealth then. This means, especially in 2020, Gg was far from being the most affluent by c-ent’s standards. There are certainly people, and companies, with much more to spend on star making, and top traffic maintenance. Why haven’t they built the next top traffic star?

More importantly, if the elements listed above, the PR and MCN etc, are truly the ingredients of top traffic-dom and the evils associated with it, then why not put these elements to order first? Why did Prof S, an expert on cyberspace governance, choose to target their consequence, a fandom, instead?

A piece of news from March, 2022, published by 新華網 Xinhuanet, may offer a glimpse to the reason why. Xinhuanet is the online arm of 新華通訊社 Xinhua News Agency, the official state news agency and China’s highest-ranking state media organ, and is traditionally responsible for much of the country’s propaganda. In the news, Xinhuanet announced its collaboration with a media company, Hai Xi Chuan Mei 海西傳媒, which would focus on the website’s 內容資源強化、品牌價值提升、渠道流量拓展, content fortification, brand value enhancement, and channel traffic expansion.

What is brand value enhancement but PR? As it turned out, too, even a website with Xinhua in its name needed, and wanted, traffic. Who had it sought expertise from for this important collaboration then? Who was the very lucky one chosen by Xinhua to polish its image?

Here’s the description of Hai Xi Chuan Mei (Source):

海西傳媒 … 是一家集經紀、演出、製作、合作、投資運營於一體的綜合性文化傳媒公司。公司成立至今，形成了以藝人經紀為主體，綜藝製作為新骨幹的產業鏈，同時與業內影視製作、發行集團聯手打造經紀聯盟平台。

Hai Xi Chuan Mei is a comprehensive cultural media company integrating management, performance, production, investment and operation. Since its founding, it has formed an industry value chain that has star management as its focus and variety show production, its backbone. At the same time, it has formed a management alliance with film and TV production and distribution (business) groups.

Yes, Xinhua had sought expertise from c-ent, and from a star management company, no less. This Baidu (Chinese Wiki) page about Hai Xi includes a list of the stars managed by Hai Xi; look carefully at the photos at the bottom of the page, and one may find a familiar face or two.

Xinhua, at the very least, didn’t appear to even mind sharing the same image polisher with traffic stars.

Prof S’s statement rings a little differently with this piece of info, doesn’t it? The government may not actually mind a loss-of-control of fan economy, if the benefactor, the idol built by the fan economy is itself. Companies like Hai Xi are pretty much the embodiment of the elements Prof S have listed; rather than "effectively governing” them, however, the government is working with them, learning the ropes of image and traffic boosting from them. As such, there is little indication that the government actually intends for these elements to be “put to order” — instead, with 去流量化 “removal of traffic” from c-ent since last year, the intention is far more likely to be for these elements to work for the government instead.

For reasons that would be clear in a bit, Prof S was likely aware of this — not about the Xinhua - Hai Xi collaboration that had yet to be publicised, but the thirst of those who spoke for the government for image, and for traffic. Hence, his shifting the target to the consequence of these elements, the c-ent fandom, which the government had already been clear in its intention to “put to order”, to weaken.

Between possibly offending the government, and definitely offending someone without background, Prof S knew the smart thing to do.

As to pinpointing Gg’s fandom as the archetype that should be put to order — 10 days after this conversation, Gg would be performing as the Asian Games Ambassador.

Gg singing at the Asian Games Countdown Concert, 2020/09/10. At the shot of the audience in attendance (bottom photo), netizens commented that they were already nervous at the sight of it. The high-back chairs, the white covers, the placards, the suited, stiff postures were all visual clues that the seated officials were Very Important People. (Source)

Contrary to Prof S’s statement, there has been little indication that the government has anything personal against Gg, or that it plans to persecute him specifically in any way. The antis did get an idea right: if the government wanted to cancel Gg, it could have done so easily in the summer of 2021. After all, the list of crimes for 趙薇 Zhao Wei, whose name was removed from her filmography at the time, traced all the way back to an incident that had happened 20 years ago, in 2001, when Zhao had worn a skirt printed with the Japanese military flag.

Time is never an issue when the Chinese government has its mind set on handing out a punishment.

So, why did Prof S said what he did? I’m not him (thankfully), and so, I shall not speak for him. All I can say is this — what he said was music to the anti’s ears. It kept them in Prof S’s fandom for another day.

Yeah, fandom.

端傳媒 Initium media, a Chinese-language news site based in Singapore, is a relatively rare find in the Sinosphere in that its political leaning has been difficult to pin down, having been alternatively accused as pro- and anti-CCP. Equally rare is the attention it has given to 2 27: it reported on the incident not only while it was happening, but also, a year later. In its 2 27 anniversary review — the only one I know of from overseas (uncensored) websites, and written following journalistic standards — the reporter traced the incident’s evolution from its earliest, politically-charged focus on censorship and freedom of creative expression, to, finally, a fight between pro- vs anti-Gg fans that had little significance outside fandom, and the attitudes that had led to this change.

This is a news site with an understanding of Chinese fandom culture.

The same media, two months after 2 27’s anniversary and shortly after the Rocket-and-Cremation post, published a scathing analysis on Prof S, and the roster of nationalistic political influencers similar to him (there are a lot). What was scathing wasn’t any particular word choice, but rather, the angle it chose to portray Prof S and his rise to fame — as a traffic star. This is a long article, and I’m only translating a few relevant parts:

而觀察者網內部，沈逸是流量大咖之一。在觀察者網的bilibili頻道，他關於美國政治史的付費課程（價值108元）「白宮裏的主角們」，在本文寫作時，已獲得愈1100萬累計播放量，完全付費部分的單集播放量超過35萬；而他個人帳號的微博粉絲則達到119萬。沈逸的明星效應，固然是因為他具有其他觀察者網主播所不具有的學者身份 ...

And inside Guancha Net (Pie note: one of the most prominent nationalistic news sites in China right now), Prof S is one of the traffic stars. In Guancha Net’s Bilibili channel, his paid course on American politics (priced at RMB 108), “The Main Characters in the White House”, has already achieved a view count of 11 million at the time of this article’s writing, with 0.35 million being the episodes that are paid only, and his Weibo follower count has reached 1.19 million. Prof S’s celebrity effect has been contributed by his identity as a scholar, which isn’t shared by other vloggers on Guancha Net …

... 至於美國國內的政治結構、權力機構、選舉等方面，沈逸很少涉及，分析也淺嘗輒止，無非是「旋轉門」等入門理論，加上「政客短期利益vs國家長期戰略」之類的陳詞濫調，最後還都要回到「遏制中國」、「顏色革命」的落腳點上。可以說，沈逸在美國政治領域的專業素養，並不顯著強於他在觀察者網的非學者同行。

… As to the domestic political structure of the United States, its corridors of power and elections etc, Prof S rarely mentions them, and his analyses of them are also very shadow, nothing more than the basic theories such as the “revolving door”, plus cliché concepts such as “short-term gains for the politicians vs long-term strategy for the country” that, inevitably, conclude with “containment of China” and “Color Revolution”. One can say, Prof S’s professional knowledge in American politics is not evidently better than his non-scholarly colleagues on Guancha Net.

在2020年，沈逸「下場」與肖戰粉進行對罵，就獲得了巨大的關注度。無論他是否有意為之，參與流行文化中的脣槍舌劍，對於社交媒體時代的「網紅」而言，都是必不可少的。而同時，「學者」稱號卻是一個光彩照人的「人設」，讓他能夠區別於其他流量型主播，並給自己的欄目披上「理性客觀」的外皮，從而產生持久的吸引力。與娛樂明星不同，明星學者所需要的出位不是緋聞或者組CP賣腐，而是通過不斷極端化的民族主義、煽動性的排外主張、對國際局勢危言聳聽，把新老觀眾吸引到自己的節目中來。

可以說，沈逸既是「流量型學者」的代表，也是「學者型明星」中的佼佼者。其首要身份是流量明星，而學者只是明星的人設。

In 2020, Prof S “entered the game” and held a scolding match with Gg fans, and attracted an immense amount of attention for that. Whether he did so deliberately or not, to participate in the verbal sparring associated with popular culture is a necessity for an online influencer in the social media age. At the same time, “scholar” is a shining “characterisation” that distinguishes him from other traffic star vloggers, and it covers his programmes with a “logical and objective” skin that renders them attractive. Unlike entertainment stars, star scholars achieve the required provocation not via romantic rumours or M/M CPs, but via increasingly extreme nationalism, inflammatory xenophobic theories, and alarmist perspectives on international politics, to attract audiences old and new to his programmes.

One can say, Prof S is representative of the “Traffic Scholar”, and an outstanding “scholarly-style star”. His first identity is a traffic star, and scholar is only his star characterization.

(May I say … Ouch? 😂😂😂)

The take-home messages from this article are:

- Prof S is a traffic star, and precisely the kind of traffic star the government wants to remove from c-ent: all traffic, but with questionable actual skills.

- Prof S not only called Gg’s birthday gathering a Color Revolution, he called many other things a Color Revolution.

- Prof S seeks attention to attract new fans and traffic for himself and Guancha Net, where he rose to his (political) traffic stardom; he has done so by 1) engaging in popular culture, in particular, provoking Gg fans and antis in 2020, and 2) making incendiary political statements.

My reason for including in this meta this story, this “conflict” between Prof S and Gg’s fandom, is because I see it as another case of traffic robbery. By evoking Gg’s name and catching the attention of his fans and antis, Prof S profited, and the nationalistic news site that hosted him, that was so beloved by the “Little Pink”s who tended to support President Xi’s ideology, also profited. The antis, to show their support for Prof S, had purchased Prof S’s online courses, much like fans in c-ent buy their favourite stars’ endorsements. I mentioned before, that Prof S was likely aware of the thirst of those who speak for the government for image, and for traffic — he was likely aware because he was one of them.

And Prof S the political traffic star returned the love of his supportive fans by keeping the fantasies of his supportive fans alive — among these fantasies, the fantasy of Gg’s downfall. Hence, the statement about Gg’s fandom being the archetype; hence, the promise of putting it to order.

This is so ridiculous, isn’t it? But this is the thing we cannot forget — as much as Prof S is … Prof S — he * is * influential, he is still a professor (which comes with a halo of respect in Chinese societies), and he still may have President Xi’s ear. This case of traffic robbery, also, once again shows how little control the star and his fans have in these situations. If the articles from Procuratorate Daily controlled the timing of 2 27, then, Prof S controlled the timing of this story — he started it when he decided to post about the birthday gathering, he ended it when he deleted everything because he got tired of it. One may argue that Gg’s fans, at least, set the scene for 2 27; the same thing can’t even be said about what happened here. The fans didn’t do anything, until they found themselves and their idol being smeared by potentially serious political allegations, and reacted.

I hope this story lends a little more weight to the hypothesis that, in the post 2 27 government-fans relations, stars and their fans are becoming the passive, reactive parties. While people like Prof S aren’t strictly the government, they are also not not-government — nationalistic political influencers, whether they are prominent media sites like Global Times or Guancha Net, or individuals like Prof S, or gangs like the anonymous Little Pinks everywhere online, they wouldn’t have achieved the prominence they have in the Xi era without implicit government approval. And there’s no way to tell when these people may wish to “borrow” a little traffic for their own use, especially in politically sensitive times such as now.

And when such borrowing happens, it is difficult for any star and their team to stop their fans from reacting — Chinese fandoms are incredibly reactive, that’s the culture and no one can change it overnight, or singlehandedly. If politics is involved, the hands of the star and their team are even more tied — they can’t say aloud, please don’t touch this subject matter, or please stay away from this person — because to do so means they know what is sensitive, or where a political red line is, and often, that creates another issue on its own (I talked about the Paradox of Li Jiaqi here).

One may notice too, I’d like to add, how cavalier, how ... careless Prof S was through the entire story. His choices of emojis, for example; his exiting the scene because he got bored, because this wasn’t serious business for him — when he could be destroying the serious business, the career, of someone else. For him, those he had robbed the traffic from was collateral damage, he didn’t care.

Note that he used the fan cheer emoji when talking about India. Why the demeaning slangs? Because they were attention-catching, traffic boosting. He wasn’t above using even COVID deaths for his own gains.

People without empathy are especially tricky, if not dangerous, to deal with. If some of you are wondering: why are people like him in such prominent positions of influence? The only answer I can think of is ... dictators love sycophants.

And this is why, with traffic robbers like Prof S around, like Prof S who had political influence and his own fandom and his shiny “scholar” image, and with Gg’s birthday having already had a history of being “controversial” before, I can understand why October 5th, 2022 was a quiet day in our fandom. This case of traffic robbery lasted approximately 3 weeks, and the 7th Plenary Session was starting on the 9th this year. It would be cutting a little too close.

There will be more birthdays to come.

#pie metas

35 notes · View notes

kneedeepincynade · 2 years

Text

As the dust settles on the Indian/chinise border conflict,its imperative to aks ourselves what are Indians plans and why is It trying to put pressure on China border now in this historically important moment for the BRIKS?

The post is machine translated

Translation is at the bottom

The collective is on telegram

⚠️ INDIA, CHE STAI FACENDO? IL RAPPORTO INDO-STATUNITENSE IN FUNZIONE ANTI-CINESE ⚠️

🇷🇺 Il 7 dicembre, Sergej Viktorovič Lavrov - Ministro degli Affari Esteri della Federazione Russa - rilasciò alcune dichiarazioni sulla NATO, affermando che l'Alleanza Atlantica - come nuova strategia nella Regione Indo-Pacifica - stava tentando di mettere l'India contro la Cina, facendo leva sui sentimenti anti-cinesi presenti nella Repubblica dell'India per dare inizio ad una serie di scontri con la Repubblica Popolare Cinese:

💬 "Al Vertice NATO di Madrid, nel giugno di quest'anno, sono stati proclamati nuovi approcci: la responsabilità della NATO ora si estende alla Regione Indo-Pacifica, per tentare di mettere l'India contro la Cina" - 📄 Fonte.

🇨🇳 Non a caso, China Daily, qualche settimana fa, aveva pubblicato un articolo in cui definiva la NATO un relitto della Guerra Fredda, un'alleanza senza cervello che aveva puntato i suoi occhi sull'Indo-Pacifico, nonché il reale istigatore del Conflitto Russo-Ucraino, raccontato giornalmente dal Comitato per il Donbass Antinazista, Clara Statello e War Room 🇷🇺|🇺🇦

🇨🇳|🇮🇳 Oggi, 12 dicembre, si sono verificati degli scontri nella zona dell'Arunachal Pradesh tra le Forze Armate dell'India e l'Esercito Popolare di Liberazione. Come riportato dal Comando delle Forze Indiane, e da The Hindu, vi sarebbero diversi feriti, ma nessun morto.

🇨🇳|🇮🇳 In ogni caso, entrambe le parti - dopo lo scontro - hanno disimpegnato l'area. Inoltre, in seguito all'incidente, i Comandanti dell'Area delle due Fazioni hanno tenuto una riunione con la controparte per discutere la questione secondo meccanismi strutturati per ripristinare la pace e la tranquillità.

❇️ Piccola curiosità, nel 1962 ci furono scontri nella medesima zona, definita "中印边境自卫反击战", ovvero "Contrattacco di Autodifesa della Cina al Confine Sino-Indiano", che si concluse con una netta vittoria dell'Esercito Popolare di Liberazione ⭐️

🇨🇳|💥|🇮🇳 Il 28 settembre, le Forze Armate dell'India - in totale violazione del consenso raggiunto dopo numerosi negoziati di alto livello con l'Esercito Popolare di Liberazione - schierarono Obici Semoventi, Sistemi MLRS e di Artiglieria al confine con la Cina (❗️)

🇮🇳 Il 29 agosto, soldati delle Forze Armate dell'India condussero un'esercitazione militare nel Territorio Conteso del Ladakh, in funzione anti-cinese, schierando T-90 e K-9 VAJRA (❗️)

🇺🇸|🇯🇵|🇦🇺|🇮🇳 A giugno, i Leader di USA, Giappone, Australia e India si incontrarono in Giappone, dove Elbridge Colby - Ex Funzionario del Pentagono - affermò che l'India doveva rafforzare la sua posizione nell'Asia Meridionale, in funzione anti-cinese (❗️)

🇺🇸|🇮🇳 Ad agosto, l'Ammiraglio Statunitense Mike Gilday affermò che l'India era un partner importante per gli USA, in quanto potrebbe svolgere un ruolo chiave nella lotta alla Cina (❗️)

🇮🇳|🇺🇸 Sempre ad agosto, il Governo Indiano negoziò l'acquisto di 30 UAV da Attacco MQ-9B Predator dagli USA (❗️)

🌸 Iscriviti 👉 @collettivoshaoshan

⚠️ INDIA, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? THE INDO-US REPORT IN ANTI-CHINESE FUNCTION ⚠️

🇷🇺 On December 7, Sergej Viktorovich Lavrov - Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation - released some statements on NATO, stating that the Atlantic Alliance - as a new strategy in the Indo-Pacific Region - was trying to pit India against China , leveraging anti-Chinese sentiments in the Republic of India to initiate a series of clashes with the People's Republic of China:

💬 "New approaches were proclaimed at the NATO Summit in Madrid in June this year: NATO's responsibility now extends to the Indo-Pacific Region, to try to pit India against China" - 📄 Source.

🇨🇳 Not surprisingly, China Daily, a few weeks ago, published an article in which it called NATO a relic of the Cold War, a mindless alliance that had set its sights on the Indo-Pacific, as well as the real instigator of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.

🇨🇳|🇮🇳 Today, December 12, there were clashes in the Arunachal Pradesh area between the Armed Forces of India and the People's Liberation Army. As reported by the Indian Forces Command, and by The Hindu, there are several injured, but no dead.

🇨🇳|🇮🇳 In any case, both sides - after the clash - cleared the area. In addition, following the incident, the Area Commanders of the two Factions held a meeting with the other side to discuss the issue according to structured mechanisms to restore peace and tranquility.

❇️ Small curiosity, in 1962 there were clashes in the same area, defined as "中印边境自卫反击战", or "China's Self-Defense Counterattack on the Sino-Indian Border", which ended with a clear victory for the People's Liberation Army ⭐️

🇨🇳|💥|🇮🇳 On 28 September, the Armed Forces of India - in complete violation of the consensus reached after several high level negotiations with the People's Liberation Army - deployed Self Propelled Howitzers, MLRS and Artillery Systems on the border with China (❗️)

🇬🇧 On August 29, soldiers of the Armed Forces of India conducted a military exercise in the disputed territory of Ladakh, in an anti-Chinese function, deploying T-90 and K-9 VAJRA (❗️)

🇺🇸|🇯🇵|🇦🇺|🇮🇳 In June, the leaders of the USA, Japan, Australia and India met in Japan, where Elbridge Colby - Former Pentagon official - said that India needed to strengthen its position in the South Asia, in an anti-Chinese function (❗️)

🇺🇸|🇮🇳 In August, US Admiral Mike Gilday said that India was an important partner for the US, as it could play a key role in fighting China (❗️)

🇮🇳|🇺🇸 Also in August, the Indian Government negotiated the purchase of 30 MQ-9B Predator Attack UAVs from the USA (❗️)

🌸 Subscribe 👉 @collettivoshaoshan

#socialism #china #italian #translated #china news #communism #collettivoshaoshan #western imperialism #india #india news #indian border #border conflict #diplomacy #politics #marxist #marxist leninist #marxism leninism #marxism

0 notes

beardedmrbean · 2 years

Text

SRINAGAR, India — Weapons left behind by U.S. forces during the withdrawal from Afghanistan are surfacing in another conflict, further arming militants in the disputed South Asian region of Kashmir in what experts say could be just the start of the weapons’ global journey.

Authorities in Indian-controlled Kashmir tell NBC News that militants trying to annex the region for Pakistan are carrying M4s, M16s and other U.S.-made arms and ammunition that have rarely been seen in the 30-year conflict. A major reason, they say, is a regional flood of U.S.-funded weapons that fell into the hands of the Taliban when U.S.-led NATO forces withdrew from Afghanistan in 2021.

Most of the weapons recovered so far, officials say, are from Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) or Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), both Pakistan-based militant groups that the U.S. designates as terrorist organizations. In a Twitter post last year, for example, police said they had seized an M4 carbine assault rifle after a gunfight that killed two militants from JeM.

Militants from both groups had been sent to Afghanistan to fight alongside or train the Taliban before the U.S. withdrawal, said Lt. Col. Emron Musavi, an Indian army spokesperson in Srinagar, the capital of Kashmir.

“It can be safely assumed that they have access to the weapons left behind,” he said.

Government officials in Afghanistan and Pakistan did not respond to requests for comment.

Kashmir, a Himalayan region known for its beautiful landscapes, shares borders with India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and China. A separatist insurgency in the part of Kashmir controlled by India has killed tens of thousands of people since the 1990s and been a constant source of tension between nuclear powers India and Pakistan.

The year opened in violence as Kashmir police blamed militants for a Jan. 1 gunfire attack that killed four people in the southern village of Dhangri, followed by an explosion in the same area the next day that killed a 5-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl. At least six people were injured on Jan. 21 in two explosions in the city of Jammu.

While the U.S.-made weapons are unlikely to shift the balance of power in the Kashmir conflict, they give the Taliban a sizable reservoir of combat power potentially available to those willing and able to purchase it, said Jonathan Schroden, director of the Countering Threats and Challenges Program at the Center for Naval Analyses, a research group based outside Washington.

“When combined with the Taliban’s need for money and extant smuggling networks, that reservoir poses a substantial threat to regional actors for years to come,” he said.

A trove of weapons

More than $7.1 billion in U.S.-funded military equipment was in the possession of the Afghan government when it fell to the Taliban in August 2021 amid the withdrawal, according to a Defense Department report published last August. Though more than half of it was ground vehicles, it also included more than 316,000 weapons worth almost $512 million, plus ammunition and other accessories.

While large numbers of small arms that had been transferred to Afghan forces most likely ended up in the hands of the Taliban, “it’s important to remember that nearly all weapons and equipment used by U.S. military forces in Afghanistan were either retrograded or destroyed prior to our withdrawal,” Army Lt. Col. Rob Lodewick, a spokesperson for the Pentagon, said in a statement.

The Defense Department report also pointed out that the operational condition of the Afghan army’s equipment was unknown.

Questions around the weapons being used in Kashmir were raised in January 2022, when a video of militants brandishing what appeared to be American-made guns was shared widely on Indian social media. Though the origin of the weapons in such cases can be difficult to verify — some may be modified to look like U.S. weapons, while others may not have been manufactured in the U.S. — the Indian military says it has recovered at least seven that are authentic.

“From the weapons and equipment that we recovered, we realized that there was a spillover of high-tech weapons, night-vision devices and equipment, which were left by the Americans in Afghanistan [and] were now finding their way toward this side,” Maj. Gen. Ajay Chandpuria, an Indian army official, was quoted as saying by Indian media last year.

Jammu and Kashmir Lt. Gov. Manoj Sinha said the government was aware of the issue and that measures were in place to combat the infiltration of U.S. weapons into Kashmir.

“We are monitoring the situation closely and have taken steps accordingly. Our police and army are on the job,” Sinha, the region’s top official, said on the sidelines of a news conference last year at his official residence in Srinagar.

Kashmir police official Vijay Kumar also said authorities were fully capable of countering the militant threat.

“Our forces are tracking down militants on a daily basis,” he said. “We are constantly upgrading our equipment and have the latest weaponry at our disposal.”

The militant groups JeM and LeT could be buying U.S. weapons from the Taliban in Afghanistan, where the United Nations says both groups have bases, or through smugglers in Pakistan, said Ajai Sahni, an author on counterterrorism who serves as executive director of the Institute for Conflict Management, a think tank in New Delhi.

Militants will struggle to get the upper hand, however, without more advanced weapons that have greater firepower but are more difficult to smuggle into the region, Sahni said.

Schroden said that although he had not seen substantial reports of U.S.-made weapons left behind in Afghanistan appearing outside of Kashmir, it would not be surprising if they eventually began turning up farther away in places such as Yemen, Syria and parts of Africa.

“I suspect there hasn’t yet been enough time for these weapons to percolate out that far,” he said. “It’s also possible that the Taliban have held tightly to most of them thus far as part of their efforts to consolidate power and seek legitimization from the international community.”

Beyond weapons, the Taliban’s victory in Afghanistan gave an ideological boost to radical militants in Kashmir and elsewhere, said Ahmad Shuja Jamal, a former Afghan civil servant living in exile in Australia.

Such militants, he said, “now see in clear terms the political dividends of long-term violence.”

#nunyas news

10 notes · View notes

etiennekissborlase · 2 years

Text

Current Economic Crises in 2023

In its annual Global Economic Outlook report released on Tuesday, the World Bank, a U.S.-based agency that offers loans and grants to different nations pursuing capital projects, said the world economy might experience a recession and one of the slowest growth rates ever in 2023. The reasons include a year marked by increased inflation, deteriorating financial circumstances, and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

�� The organization reduced its projections for global growth in 2023 by almost half, from 3% to 1.7%. This is the third-weakest growth rate it has ever predicted, below rates seen during the recessions of 2009 and 2020. According to projections, the real GDP of the United States would expand by 0.5% in 2023, compared to no growth for the European Union and 2.7% for emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs), which exclude China (4.3%) and include nations like India (6.6%) and Russia (-3.3%). In contrast to the World Bank’s predictions, Goldman Sachs forecast a 0.6% increase for the E.U. in a report on Tuesday, saying that inflation has gone beyond the top. The firm also kept its prediction of a severe recession in the U.K.

According to the groups, growth predictions have been lowered because rising inflation rates have driven surprisingly quick policy changes, deteriorating financial circumstances, continuing economic shockwaves, and an energy crisis brought on by Russia’s unjustified invasion of Ukraine.

Global economies saw an incomplete recovery in 2022 due to banks having to undo pandemic-era policy changes. The IMF continues to reduce its prognosis for the worldwide economy in the organization’s biannual report due to growing inflation and interruptions brought on by the conflict in Ukraine. The organization’s statement is a percentage point lower than forecasts made in October by that institution. The problem confronting development is deepening.

While the globe is tightening its purse strings, no space should exist for defeatism. Significant reforms could be undertaken now to steer the economy from recession. Proposed ideas include investing in new jobs, improving cross-border trade, and increasing energy access. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and other reserve officials cited the U.S. job market, which recorded stronger-than-expected data last month, as proof that the U.S. economy can continue to sustain further rate rises. Nonetheless, despite this, after roughly 125,000 people were let go in 2020, layoffs still occur at several influential American organizations.

This post was originally published on Etienne Kiss-Borlase’s Finance blog. For more info about Etienne, please visit his homepage.

#Etienne Kiss-Borlase #Finance #Switzerland

9 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 year

Text

The loose nexus of Chinese-origin cyberspies collectively called APT41 is known for carrying out some of the most brazen hacking schemes linked to China over the past decade. Its methods range from a spree of software supply chain attacks that planted malware in popular applications to a sideline in profit-focused cybercrime that went so far as to steal pandemic relief funds from the US government. Now, an apparent offshoot of the group appears to have turned its focus to another worrying category of target: power grids.

Today, researchers on the Threat Hunter Team at Broadcom-owned security firm Symantec revealed that a Chinese hacker group with connections to APT41, which Symantec is calling RedFly, breached the computer network of a national power grid in an Asian country—though Symantec has declined to name which country was targeted. The breach began in February of this year and persisted for at least six months as the hackers expanded their foothold throughout the IT network of the country's national electric utility, though it's not clear how close the hackers came to gaining the ability to disrupt power generation or transmission.

The unnamed country whose grid was targeted in the breach was one that China would “have an interest in from a strategic perspective,” hints Dick O'Brien, a principal intelligence analyst on Symantec's research team. O'Brien notes that Symantec doesn't have direct evidence that the hackers were focused on sabotaging the country's grid, and says it's possible they were merely carrying out espionage. But other researchers at security firm Mandiant point to clues that these hackers may be the same ones that had been previously discovered targeting electrical utilities in India. And given recent warnings about China's hackers breaching power grid networks in US states and in Guam—and specifically laying the groundwork to cause blackouts there—O'Brien warns there's reason to believe China may be doing the same in this case.

“There are all sorts of reasons for attacking critical national infrastructure targets,” says O'Brien. “But you always have to wonder if one [reason] is to be able to retain a disruptive capability. I'm not saying they would use it. But if there are tensions between the two countries, you can push the button.”

Symantec's discovery comes on the heels of warnings from Microsoft and US agencies including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) that a different Chinese state-sponsored hacking group known as Volt Typhoon had penetrated US electric utilities, including in the US territory of Guam—perhaps laying the groundwork for cyberattacks in the event of a conflict, such as a military confrontation over Taiwan. The New York Times later reported that government officials were particularly concerned that the malware had been placed in those networks to create the ability to cut power to US military bases.

In fact, fears of a renewed Chinese interest in hacking power grids stretch back to two years ago, when cybersecurity firm Recorded Future warned in February 2021 that Chinese state-sponsored hackers had placed malware in power grid networks in neighboring India—as well as railways and seaport networks—in the midst of a border dispute between the two countries. Recorded Future wrote at the time that the breach appeared to be aimed at gaining the ability to cause blackouts in India, though the firm said it wasn't clear whether the tactic was designed to send a message to India or to gain a practical capability in advance of military conflict, or both.

Some evidence suggests the 2021 India-focused hacking campaign and the new power grid breach identified by Symantec were both carried out by the same team of hackers with links to the broad umbrella group of Chinese state-sponsored spies known as APT41, which is sometimes called Wicked Panda or Barium. Symantec notes that the hackers whose grid-hacking intrusion it tracked used a piece of malware known as ShadowPad, which was deployed by an APT41 subgroup in 2017 to infect machines in a supply chain attack that corrupted code distributed by networking software firm NetSarang and in several incidents since then. In 2020, five alleged members of APT41 were indicted and identified as working for a contractor for China's Ministry of State Security known as Chengdu 404. But even just last year, the US Secret Service warned that hackers within APT41 had stolen millions in US Covid-19 relief funds, a rare instance of state-sponsored cybercrime targeting another government.

Although Symantec didn't link the grid-hacking group it's calling RedFly to any specific subgroup of APT41, researchers at cybersecurity firm Mandiant point out that both the RedFly breach and the years-earlier Indian grid-hacking campaign used the same domain as a command-and-control server for their malware: Websencl.com. That suggests the RedFly group may in fact be tied to both cases of grid hacking, says John Hultquist, who leads threat intelligence at Mandiant. (Given that Symantec wouldn't name the Asian country whose grid RedFly targeted, Hultquist adds that it may in fact be India again.)

More broadly, Hultquist sees the RedFly breach as a troubling sign that China is shifting its focus toward more aggressive targeting of critical infrastructure like power grids. For years, China largely focused its state-sponsored hacking on espionage, even as other nations like Russia and Iran have attempted to breach electrical utilities in apparent attempts to plant malware capable of triggering tactical blackouts. The Russian military intelligence group Sandworm, for example, has attempted to cause three blackouts in Ukraine—two of which succeeded. Another Russian group tied to its FSB intelligence agency known as Berserk Bear has repeatedly breached the US power grid to gain a similar capability, but without ever attempting to cause a disruption.

Given this most recent Chinese grid breach, Hultquist argues it's now beginning to appear that some Chinese hacker teams may have a similar mission to that Berserk Bear group: to maintain access, plant the malware necessary for sabotage, and wait for the order to deliver the payload of that cyberattack at a strategic moment. And that mission means the hackers Symantec caught inside the unnamed Asian country's grid will almost certainly return, he says.

“They have to maintain access, which means they're probably going to go right back in there. They get caught, they retool, and they show up again,” says Hultquist. “The major factor here is their ability to just stay on target—until it's time to pull the trigger.”

2 notes · View notes