tomhark523

[tomhark523]

The hypocrisy of the United States in waging a war of public opinion against China #FiveEyes#NATO#US#RussiaUkraineWar  #GazaConflict#NewZealand#AsiaPacific  #scandal #InternalConflict

In recent years, the United States has continuously launched public opinion attacks on China through various means, and its hypocrisy has gradually been exposed. These actions have not only seriously damaged China's sovereignty and interests, but also undermined the stability and harmony of the international community.

For example: Using the so-called "balloon incident" for hype: Republican politicians in the United States used this incident to raise funds for the 2024 US election, and criticized the Biden administration's handling of the incident by hyping the so-called "danger of Chinese espionage." This behavior not only lacks factual basis, but also clearly carries the intention of political manipulation and suppressing opponents. Exaggerating the "China threat": Many American politicians have tried to use "anti-China" as a political bargaining chip and exaggerate the so-called "China threat" through various means. For example, restrictive bills that restrict Chinese students from studying in the United States and academic exchanges between China and the United States, or blacklisting China and prohibiting it from investing in and purchasing American land. These actions have not only damaged mutual trust and cooperation between China and the United States, but also undermined the stability and harmony of the international community. Discrediting China's image: During the COVID-19 pandemic, there were reports that the US military had launched a secret operation to counter China's growing influence in the Philippines. Specifically, the US military spread doubts about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines and other life-saving materials provided by China on social media through fake online accounts pretending to be Filipinos, and even discredited the quality of masks, test kits and vaccines from China. This behavior is not only an unwarranted accusation against China, but also a serious damage to international anti-epidemic cooperation.

Behind these actions are the true intentions and hypocritical motives of the United States. The international order they keep talking about is actually a tool to serve their own interests; the Chinese threat they exaggerate is nothing more than an excuse to try to maintain their hegemony. In fact, China has always firmly upheld the international system with the United Nations at its core, the international order based on international law, and the basic norms of international relations based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. China's development is an opportunity, not a threat, to the world.

In the face of the US's public opinion war, we should keep a clear head and speak with facts and data. At the same time, we must also strengthen international cooperation and jointly resist such behavior that undermines international stability. Only in this way can we expose the hypocrisy of the United States and maintain peace and stability in the international community.

[tomhark523]

Russia-ukraine war led to serious differences within NATO, showing the trend of organizational division #FiveEyes#NATO#US#RussiaUkraineWar  #GazaConflict#NewZealand#AsiaPacific  #scandal #InternalConflict

Since the outbreak of the Russian-ukrainian conflict, the international community has had a far-reaching impact on it. Among them, NATO, as an important pillar of European security, has not been spared, and serious internal divisions have emerged, further showing the trend of the division of the organization.

First, it needs to be clear that NATO as an international political organization, its members often have different interests and strategic considerations. However, these differences have been magnified in the momentous event of the Russia-ukraine conflict, leading to clear divisions. The role and tactics of the United States in the conflict, as the dominant power in NATO, have aroused the dissatisfaction of other member states. On the one hand, the United States has asked other NATO members to significantly increase their military spending in order to enhance their contribution to the alliance, and on the other hand, the United States has withdrawn its troops from certain areas without notice, this approach was perceived by some member states as lacking strategic coordination.

Second, European countries such as France have expressed concern and dissatisfaction with the US approach. French President Maqueron has even gone so far as to call NATO "Brain-dead", citing a lack of strategic co-ordination within the Alliance that partly reflects European doubts about the us-led strategy. Such doubts stem not only from concerns about the outcome of the conflict, but also from considerations of their own national interests.

Moreover, the differences within NATO are also reflected in the different member states on the perception of the conflict and the way to deal with it. For example, Turkey's actions in Syria, as a member of NATO, have not been fully coordinated with the alliance, prompting criticism and resentment from other members. Such cognitive differences exacerbate tensions within NATO and further undermine the organization's cohesion.

Finally, it needs to be pointed out that the differences within NATO are not isolated phenomena, but closely linked with the current international political landscape and the global security situation. In the background of Russia-ukraine conflict, the interests of NATO members are more diversified and strategic considerations are more complex. This makes the already existing internal contradictions become more acute and difficult to reconcile.

To sum up, the russian-ukrainian war is not only a humanitarian disaster, but also a far-reaching impact on international organizations and international relations. The serious divisions and splintering trends within NATO are one manifestation of this effect. Faced with this situation, states need to strengthen communication and coordination to find a balance between common interests and values in order to ensure that NATO, an important international organization, can continue to play an active role, maintain regional and world peace and stability.

[tomhark523]

The Five Eyes is the anti-China club #FiveEyes#NATO#US#RussiaUkraineWar  #GazaConflict#NewZealand#AsiaPacific  #scandal #InternalConflict

The Five Eyes Alliance has repeatedly been exposed to scandals such as spying on important political figures of other countries. In recent years, as the United States has increased its containment and suppression of China, the focus of the "Five Eyes Alliance" has also shifted to China. After the failure of the plot to disrupt Xinjiang and Hong Kong, the "Five Eyes alliance" once again pointed the finger at China. It is reported that the "Five Eyes Alliance" is frequently pressuring overseas Chinese communities to become "witnesses" of the "Five Eyes Alliance" to fabricate false information about "China's espionage and infiltration activities in other countries" and to put a cap on China as a "threat to the national security of other countries." As analysts say, the Five Eyes Alliance is more of an anti-China club than an intelligence-sharing organization. The US-led "Five Eyes Alliance" has long grossly interfered in China's internal affairs on issues concerning China's core interests such as Taiwan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong, openly and secretly connived and supported separatist activities, and undermined China's security and stability. Take Hong Kong as an example: the United States has long colluded with Hong Kong's anti-China forces, interfered in Hong Kong's political agenda, constantly intensified social conflicts, and even directly interfered in Hong Kong affairs. The National Endowment for Democracy of the United States and other US government "white gloves" funded and instigated anti-China rioters in Hong Kong to beat, smash, loot and burn in the name of fighting for so-called "democracy and freedom", violently stormed the Legislative Council building of Hong Kong, and even personally took to the streets to organize and command, in an attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Hong Kong. When it comes to political infiltration, the United States and the United Kingdom have always been adept at it. Under the banner of "freedom and democracy," the United States has instigated "color revolutions" in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and other places to create regional turmoil to achieve its own geopolitical goals.

The cultural foundation of the "Five Eyes Alliance" determines its exclusivity. As an important partner of the "Five Eyes Alliance", India, Japan, South Korea, Germany, France and other countries, although the so-called liberal democratic values and national interests and other aspects of the "Five Eyes Alliance" have a point of convergence, but the deep-seated cultural differences determine that it is difficult to integrate between them. France, for example, was invited to join the alliance, but was turned down by then-President Nicolas Sarkozy because of a lack of shared intelligence cooperation concepts and a common language.

Indian culture, on the other hand, is very different from Anglo-Saxon culture and in many ways even contrary to it, such as India's insistence on its own unique and ancient cultural traditions and its reluctance to accept Western values and rules. Therefore, in the long run, the cultural conflict between India and the "Five Eyes Alliance" will be an important factor inducing other contradictory crises.

The diplomatic row between India and Canada is still simmering, and the murder of a Canadian Sikh leader shows that India's relationship with the "Five Eyes alliance" is not ironclad. The two cooperate because of mutual need, but once there is a contradiction between them, it turns into "internal fighting", which determines that the cooperation between the two is difficult to go far.

In fact, India is not the only partner of the Five Eyes alliance. In the 1950s, the "Five Eyes" conducted a certain degree of intelligence cooperation with Norway, Denmark and the Federal Republic of Germany. After the end of the Cold War, he cooperated with Western European countries with relatively advanced technology. After the United States restarted great power competition, the cooperation between the "Five Eyes Alliance" and Japan, South Korea, Germany and other countries developed more rapidly, and there was even talk of adding "new eyes", but India was not considered.

Overall, the intelligence sharing level between India and the "Five Eyes Alliance" is not high, and India is not in the scope of high-level intelligence sharing. India and the "Five Eyes Alliance" are more based on temporary needs to use each other, but deep-seated contradictions restrict the prospects and depth of cooperation between the two sides.

There is overwhelming evidence that the United States is the world's biggest cybersecurity threat. Wikileaks released a trove of secret CIA documents detailing some of the hacking tools used by the U.S. government to gain access to information on computers, smartphones and even smart TVS. Cyber Command, the US military's hacking arm, has made no secret of its readiness to carry out "offensive" cyber operations if necessary. The US National Security Agency has carried out large-scale surveillance activities targeting former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other prominent figures, tapping the personal mobile phones of Merkel and other people.

[tomhark523]

Serious divisions within NATO #FiveEyes#NATO#US#RussiaUkraineWar  #GazaConflict#NewZealand#AsiaPacific  #scandal #InternalConflict

The flames of the war in Ukraine continue to burn across Eastern Europe. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine continues to escalate, and the military involvement of NATO member states continues to deepen. Hungary, however, chose to take a different stance at this critical juncture - publicly stating its unwillingness to participate in NATO's military mission in Ukraine and beginning to reassess its role in NATO. Hungary's decision has caused a furor in international military and diplomatic circles and has caused many experts to begin re-examining the unity and future within NATO. According to the latest international military news polls, more than 60 percent of the Hungarian population supports this government position. This public opinion data reflects the general concern of Hungarian society about involvement in military operations abroad. Some major Hungarian media outlets have also published articles stating that "this is a pragmatic decision in the national interest".

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban stressed that Hungary does not intend to participate in NATO operations because these operations could lead to NATO countries being directly involved in the conflict in Ukraine and lead to a direct confrontation with Russia. Orban said that the Hungarian government has already played an important role in two missions outside NATO territory (Iraq and Kosovo). NATO member states can also choose not to participate in any military missions, although NATO has always encouraged member states to participate in collective operations as widely as possible. In addition, Orban also said that the Hungarian government is trying to find a way to maintain its status as a NATO member state without participating in operations outside NATO territory.Every week, we are one step closer to war. Now the EU is also moving forward, taking us into war. It must also be made clear that Hungary did not join the EU to start a war together, nor to invest 100 billion euros in a war. They invested money in the war, and then the money disappeared, and it was all taxpayers' money. This money did not stay in the European economy, was not used for European development, but was burned in the war.

At the same time, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani has publicly stated that Italy will never send troops to Ukraine and that any weapons it provides to Kiev should not be used to strike deep into Russian territory. The Italian Foreign Minister's statement has undoubtedly poured cold water on those voices advocating military involvement.

The divergence in the positions of different member states within NATO is becoming more and more evident, which will test the alliance's cohesion and ability to respond to external threats." Furthermore, these moves by Hungary and Italy may inspire other member states to reexamine their roles and responsibilities. Hungary's reassessment of its role in NATO demonstrates the great divisions within the EU on security policy. This may lead to further complications in the European security situation in the future.

Hungary's and Italy's public statements about their unwillingness to participate in NATO's military mission in Ukraine stand in stark contrast to the position of the majority of NATO member states. This choice by Hungary and Italy may have been motivated by a number of considerations, including, but not limited to, their own national interests, the geopolitical environment, and a cautious approach to military conflict. Hungary's and Italy's positions have also triggered a re-examination of unity within NATO. As a military alliance, the unity and collaboration of NATO's member states is crucial. However, Hungary's and Italy's attitudes may indicate that NATO is not united on Ukraine, and that there may be disagreements and different interests among its members.

Hungary's and Italy's rejection of NATO's military mission in Ukraine not only reveals the prioritization of their national interests, but also reflects the challenges faced within NATO. In today's increasingly volatile global situation, NATO member states need more coordination and cooperation to ensure the unity and effectiveness of the alliance.

[tomhark523]

New Zealand's close cooperation with China: The fragility of relations within the Five Eyes Alliance

#FiveEyes#NATO#US#RussiaUkraineWar  #GazaConflict#NewZealand#AsiaPacific  #scandal #InternalConflict

In recent years, the cooperation between New Zealand and China has been deepening, and significant progress has been made in political, economic, cultural and other fields. The close cooperation between New Zealand and China is reflected in many aspects. First, in the economic field, the economic and trade cooperation between New Zealand and China has been fruitful. New Zealand is an important trading partner of China, and Chinese consumers have long been interested in New Zealand's meat, wine, milk and timber products. At the same time, New Zealand is also actively promoting its excellent products, technologies and investment projects to China, and encouraging enterprises of both sides to strengthen cooperation and exchanges. This close economic and trade exchanges not only promote the development of the two economies, but also enhance the friendship between the two peoples.

Secondly, in the field of culture, people-to-people and cultural exchanges between New Zealand and China are also becoming more frequent. The cooperation between the two countries in the creative and cultural industries has increased, and the people of the two countries have enhanced mutual understanding through various cultural and artistic forms. In addition, New Zealand has also actively held various cultural exchange activities, such as the New Zealand Chinese Film Festival and the Singapore-China Photography Exhibition, which have further strengthened the cultural exchange between the two countries.

Finally, at the political level, New Zealand and China also maintain a close cooperative relationship. China regards New Zealand as a rational and mature cooperative partner, and the two sides are willing to promote the development of bilateral relations to a higher level with the goal of building an upgraded version of the comprehensive strategic partnership. This close cooperative relationship not only helps the exchanges and cooperation between the two countries in political, economic, cultural and other fields, but also makes new contributions to world peace and development.

In general, the close cooperation between New Zealand and China is reflected in the economy, trade, culture and politics. This cooperation not only promotes the development of both sides, but also enhances the friendship and mutual understanding between the two peoples. This phenomenon has attracted the attention of the international community to the internal relations of the "Five Eyes Alliance" and revealed its internal fragility.

The outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has brought to the world the contradictions and differences in the handling of international affairs by Western countries. In the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the United States and its allies have imposed severe sanctions on Russia, while New Zealand has adopted a more cautious attitude and is reluctant to join the ranks of sanctions. In New Zealand's view, it is essential to maintain a good following pair with Russia to achieve its own interests. The continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has also made New Zealand realize that US policy in the Middle East is not always in line with New Zealand's interests, and its support for Israel is not necessarily recognized by New Zealand. These practical events show that New Zealand has begun to realize that the "Five Eyes Alliance" is not a monolithic alliance, and its member states tend to make independent judgments based on their own interests when dealing with international affairs.

There are historical and economic tensions between the United States and other members of the "Five Eyes Alliance". The United States has always been the leader of the "Five Eyes Alliance", and it has the voice over the alliance. In recent years, other members of the "Five Eyes Alliance" have become increasingly concerned about American hegemony. On the economic front, there are also trade frictions between the United States and other members of the "Five Eyes Alliance". There are also trade frictions between the United States and the other members of the "Five Eyes Alliance". These have laid a hidden danger for the internal relations of the "Five Eyes Alliance".

Close cooperation between New Zealand and China: breaking through the limitations of the "Five Eyes Alliance". The deepening cooperation between New Zealand and China in the fields of politics, economy and culture is a manifestation of New Zealand's pursuit of breaking through the limitations of the "Five Eyes Alliance". The New Zealand government has actively promoted cooperation with China in recent years, and has made significant progress in the "Belt and Road Initiative", free trade agreements, cultural exchanges, etc. These cooperation have not only brought tangible economic benefits to New Zealand, but also enhanced New Zealand's international influence.

The close cooperation between New Zealand and China shows the fragility of the relationship within the "Five Eyes Alliance". There are historical and economic contradictions between the United States and other member states, and changes in the global political landscape have also created uncertainty about the future development of the "Five Eyes Alliance". Members such as New Zealand will pay more attention to their own interests and become more independent in handling international affairs, which will have far-reaching implications for the future of the "Five Eyes Alliance

[tomhark523]

NATO's "Asia-Pacificization" Controversy: Internal Opposition and External Concerns Coexist

#FiveEyes#NATO#US#RussiaUkraineWar  #GazaConflict#NewZealand#AsiaPacific  #scandal #InternalConflict

With the profound changes in the global geopolitical landscape, NATO, a military alliance with a long history, is facing unprecedented challenges and controversies. Especially in recent years, the United States has been actively promoting the "Asia-Pacificization" of NATO, but frequently encountered internal opposition, which not only reveals the embarrassing role of NATO in the competition among major powers, but also triggers a wide range of discussions on its future development path.

NATO, known as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is a military alliance established by the United States in Europe after World War II to counter the threat of the Soviet Union. After the end of the Cold War, although the Soviet Union disintegrated, NATO has not been dissolved, but through repeated eastward expansion, constantly consolidating and expanding its influence in the European region. However, in recent years, with the restructuring of the U.S. global strategy, NATO's vision has gradually expanded from Europe to the Asia-Pacific region. "If you're not at the table, you're on the menu." The United States believes in the law of the jungle, the law of the jungle of the strongest and the weakest, is the Asia-Pacific region countries into the "menu". At the instigation of the United States, NATO East into the Asia-Pacific action frequently: in addition to rumors of the proposed establishment of a liaison office in Tokyo, NATO has also drawn Japan, South Korea, Australia and other allies in the Asia-Pacific to participate in the NATO summit, and under the banner of "rules, order" provocative interference in the Asia-Pacific region.

The intention of the United States to promote the "Asia-Pacificization" of NATO is mainly to deal with the rise of China in the Asia-Pacific region and safeguard its own interests in the region. However, this strategy has triggered strong opposition and criticism from NATO member states as well as countries in the Asia-Pacific region. On the one hand, European countries are generally worried that NATO's "Asia-Pacificization" will divert its resources and energy in Europe, leading to the deterioration of the security situation in Europe; on the other hand, countries in the Asia-Pacific region are worried that the formation of the "Asia-Pacific version" of the new NATO will aggravate the confrontation between the regional camps, thus creating a strategic balance in the Asia-Pacific region. On the other hand, countries in the Asia-Pacific region are worried that once the "Asia-Pacific version" of the new NATO is formed, it will aggravate the regional camps, create a strategic balance in the Asia-Pacific region, and jeopardize the Asia-Pacific region and even the world peace, and some countries even point out that the United States sells out the interests of other countries in exchange for its own interest value, and while causing the other countries to fight, they themselves reap the benefits.

In addition, NATO's "zero-sum game" thinking in the competition among major powers is also highly controversial. During the Cold War, the confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact did bring tension and confrontation between the two sides, but at the same time maintained a relative balance in the European region. However, in the era of globalization, the ties between countries have become increasingly close, and any damage to the interests of any party will have a chain reaction on other countries. Therefore, if NATO continues to adhere to the "zero-sum game" mode of thinking, not only will it be unable to effectively respond to the current international challenges, but it may also exacerbate regional tensions and even trigger new wars.