#Russia-North Korea relations | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

treethymes · 2 months

Text

With the exceptions of North Korea and Cuba, the communist world has merged onto the capitalist highway in a couple different ways during the twenty-first century. As you’ve read, free-trade imperialism and its cheap agricultural imports pushed farmers into the cities and into factory work, lowering the global price of manufacturing labor and glutting the world market with stuff. Forward-thinking states such as China and Vietnam invested in high-value-added production capacity and managed labor organizing, luring links from the global electronics supply chain and jump-starting capital investment. Combined with capital’s hesitancy to invest in North Atlantic production facilities, as well as a disinclination toward state-led investment in the region, Asian top-down planning erased much of the West’s technological edge. If two workers can do a single job, and one worker costs less, both in wages and state support, why pick the expensive one? Foxconn’s 2017 plan to build a U.S. taxpayer–subsidized $10 billion flat-panel display factory in Wisconsin was trumpeted by the president, but it was a fiasco that produced zero screens. The future cost of labor looks to be capped somewhere below the wage levels many people have enjoyed, and not just in the West.

The left-wing economist Joan Robinson used to tell a joke about poverty and investment, something to the effect of: The only thing worse than being exploited by capitalists is not being exploited by capitalists. It’s a cruel truism about the unipolar world, but shouldn’t second place count for something? When the Soviet project came to an end, in the early 1990s, the country had completed world history’s biggest, fastest modernization project, and that didn’t just disappear. Recall that Cisco was hyped to announce its buyout of the Evil Empire’s supercomputer team. Why wasn’t capitalist Russia able to, well, capitalize? You’re already familiar with one of the reasons: The United States absorbed a lot of human capital originally financed by the Soviet people. American immigration policy was based on draining technical talent in particular from the Second World. Sergey Brin is the best-known person in the Moscow-to-Palo-Alto pipeline, but he’s not the only one.

Look at the economic composition of China and Russia in the wake of Soviet dissolution: Both were headed toward capitalist social relations, but they took two different routes. The Russian transition happened rapidly. The state sold off public assets right away, and the natural monopolies such as telecommunications and energy were divided among a small number of skilled and connected businessmen, a category of guys lacking in a country that frowned on such characters but that grew in Gorbachev’s liberalizing perestroika era. Within five years, the country sold off an incredible 35 percent of its national wealth. Russia’s richest ended the century with a full counterrevolutionary reversal of their fortunes, propelling their income share above what it was before the Bolsheviks took over. To accomplish this, the country’s new capitalists fleeced the most vulnerable half of their society. “Over the 1989–2016 period, the top 1 percent captured more than two-thirds of the total growth in Russia,” found an international group of scholars, “while the bottom 50 percent actually saw a decline in its income.” Increases in energy prices encouraged the growth of an extractionist petro-centered economy. Blood-covered, teary, and writhing, infant Russian capital crowded into the gas and oil sectors. The small circle of oligarchs privatized unemployed KGB-trained killers to run “security,” and gangsters dominated politics at the local and national levels. They installed a not particularly well-known functionary—a former head of the new intelligence service FSB who also worked on the privatization of government assets—as president in a surprise move on the first day of the year 2000. He became the gangster in chief.

Vladimir Putin’s first term coincided with the energy boom, and billionaires gobbled up a ludicrous share of growth. If any individual oligarch got too big for his britches, Putin was not beyond imposing serious consequences. He reinserted the state into the natural monopolies, this time in collaboration with loyal capitalists, and his stranglehold on power remains tight for now, despite the outstandingly uneven distribution of growth. Between 1980 and 2015, the Russian top 1 percent grew its income an impressive 6.2 percent per year, but the top .001 percent has maintained a growth rate of 17 percent over the same period. To invest these profits, the Russian billionaires parked their money in real estate, bidding up housing prices, and stashed a large amount of their wealth offshore. Reinvestment in Russian production was not a priority—why go through the hassle when there were easier ways to keep getting richer?

While Russia grew billionaires instead of output, China saw a path to have both. As in the case of Terry Gou, the Chinese Communist Party tempered its transition by incorporating steadily increasing amounts of foreign direct investment through Hong Kong and Taiwan, picking partners and expanding outward from the special economic zones. State support for education and infrastructure combined with low wages to make the mainland too attractive to resist. (Russia’s population is stagnant, while China’s has grown quickly.) China’s entry into the World Trade Organization, in 2001, gave investors more confidence. Meanwhile, strong capital controls kept the country out of the offshore trap, and state development priorities took precedence over extraction and get-rich-quick schemes. Chinese private wealth was rechanneled into domestic financial assets—equity and bonds or other loan instruments—at a much higher rate than it was in Russia. The result has been a sustained high level of annual output growth compared to the rest of the world, the type that involves putting up an iPhone City in a matter of months. As it has everywhere else, that growth has been skewed: only an average of 4.5 percent for the bottom half of earners in the 1978–2015 period compared to more than 10 percent for the top .001 percent. But this ratio of just over 2–1 is incomparable to Russia’s 17–.5 ration during the same period.

Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, certain trends have been more or less unavoidable. The rich have gotten richer relative to the poor and working class—in Russia, in China, in the United States, and pretty much anywhere else you want to look. Capital has piled into property markets, driving up the cost of housing everywhere people want to live, especially in higher-wage cities and especially in the world’s financial centers. Capitalist and communist countries alike have disgorged public assets into private pockets. But by maintaining a level of control over the process and slowing its tendencies, the People’s Republic of China has built a massive and expanding postindustrial manufacturing base.

It’s important to understand both of these patterns as part of the same global system rather than as two opposed regimes. One might imagine, based on what I’ve written so far, that the Chinese model is useful, albeit perhaps threatening, in the long term for American tech companies while the Russian model is irrelevant. Some commentators have phrased this as the dilemma of middle-wage countries on the global market: Wages in China are going to be higher than wages in Russia because wages in Russia used to be higher than wages in China. But Russia’s counterrevolutionary hyper-bifurcation has been useful for Silicon Valley as well; they are two sides of the same coin. Think about it this way: If you’re a Russian billionaire in the first decades of the twenty-first century looking to invest a bunch of money you pulled out of the ground, where’s the best place you could put it? The answer is Palo Alto.

Malcolm Harris, Palo Alto

53 notes · View notes

thatwobblychair · 18 days

Text

CoD The Other Good Guys Bear! Edition

What if the rest of the good guys in call of duty were bears? Part 2 - see Part 1 for 141 as bears

More bear facts! Cause bears are truly the best! 🐻💯

Alejandro: Mexican Grizzly Bear*

Ursus arctos nelsoni - now Ursus arctos horribilis

*depiction of what a mexican grizzly bear may have looked like alive

A now extinct subspecies of the grizzly bear that once inhabited northern Mexico. Due to its predation on cattle farms, they were considered pests and hunted by farmers. By the 1960s there were less than 30 individuals remaining. In 1974 the last known individual was shot in Sonora.

It was smaller than grizzly bears from the United states and Canada, and its colouration was said to range from a pale yellow to greyish-white with a darker undertone, though some individuals were described to be darker and reddish brown.

Due to its silvery fur, it was called 'el olso plateado' (the silvery bear) in Spanish, though it's name in the Ópatas language (an indigenous Mexican people's) was 'pissini'.

Rudy: Spectacled Bear "Andean Bear"

Tremarctos ornatus

The last remaining short-faced bear, native to the Andes Mountains in northern and western South America. Though all bears are omnivores, the spectacled bear has a mostly herbivorous diet with only 5-7% of their diet being meat.

The bear is named after it's distinctive eye markings, though not all spectacled bears may have such markings. Individuals can have highly variable fur patterns making it relatively easy to distinguish from one another.

It's short face and broad snout is thought to be an adaptation to a carnivorous diet despite it's herbivorous preferences.

Paddington Bear is said to be a Spectacled Bear from Peru.

Farah: Asian Black Bear "Moon Bear"

Ursus thibetanus

A medium sized bear native to Asia and highly adapted to arboreal life. It can be found in parts of Korea, China, Japan, eastern Russia, the Himalayas, southeastern Iran and northern India. It is listed as vulnerable due to deforestation and poaching for its body parts (used in traditional medicines).

The name 'moon bear' is given due to its distinctive creamy white cresent fur patch, though in some individuals it is "V" shaped. It has a powerful upper body stronger than it's lower limbs and are known to be the most bipedal of bears.

It has a reputation for extreme aggression despite their reclusive nature and there have been documented reports of unprovoked attacks. They are said to be more aggressive than the Eurasian Brown Bears that may cohabit the same areas and the American Black Bear.

Alex: American Black Bear

Ursus americanus

Alongside the Brown Bear, it is one of the only Bear species not threatened with extinction.

Despite living in North America, it is more closely related to the Asian Black Bear and Sun Bear than Grizzly Bears (North American Brown Bears) and Polar Bears. It's ancestors are thought to have split off from the Sun Bear.

Black Bears are distinguished from Grizzly Bears who may cohabit the same area, with their longer tall ears, straight face profile, shorter claws and lack of distinctive hump.

Teddy bears, Winnie-the-Pooh, and Smokey Bear are all inspired by the American Black Bear.

Nikolai: Polar Bear

Ursus maritimus

A large bear native to the Arctic. It is closely related to the Brown Bear and can hybridise with them though this is rare and not often seen. (See Grolar Bears)

They are the most carnivorous of all bear species (hypercarnivores), specialising in hunting seals through ambush attacks. Polar Bears are usually solitary but can be found in groups on land. They can form stable 'alliances' based on dominance hierarchies outside of breeding seasons with the largest males at the top.

It's common name was given in 1771, and was previously referred to as 'white bear', 'ice bear', 'sea bear', 'Greenland bear' in 13th - 18th century Europe. The Netsilik cultures (Inuit) named it 'nanook' and have several additional different names for them depending on sex and age of the polar bear.

Laswell: Kodiak Bear "Kodiak/Alaskan Brown Bear"

Ursus arctos middendorffi

Named after it's habitation of the Kodiak Archipelago in southwest Alaska, the Kodiak bear is the largest subspecies of Brown Bear, with some individuals comparable to the Polar Bear in size.

An island bear, it is 1.5-2x larger than it's mainland cousins the grizzly bear, though physically and physiologically, the two bears are very similar.

Due to its tendancy to feed in dense groups, it has thought to have developed more complex social behaviours (in comparison to mainland grizzly bears) to minimise infighting/fatalities via both verbal/ body posturing and social structures.

All info taken from wiki. Please let me know if ther any mistakes.

#cod mwii #cod mw2 #call of duty modern warfare #cod mwiii #alejandro vargas #rudy parra #rudy cod #farah karim #farah cod #alex cod #nikolai cod #kate laswell #laswell cod #bears #bear facts

23 notes · View notes

pixeljade · 1 month

Text

I do keep seeing posts that say "whys Joe even funding Israel except that he loves Genocide" or "Why is there discussion of leaving NATO in the senate survey" and like. Here. Let me explain this to you. (DISCLAIMER: I hate Joe Biden I'm just doing this because understanding your opponents motivations makes it so you can more effectively fight them)

When you're President, issues are not just single simple issues. Theres a shitton of moving parts, and he cant be obvious about his awareness of all these parts for transparency's sake because that also gives his enemies (which would include those of us who want Both Parties Gone) an upper hand. Joe Biden views Israel as a necessary US base of operation in the middle east to defend the USA in case of an attack by China and (more pressing lately) Russia.

See, with Russia attacking Ukraine, Ukraine is thinking of joining NATO as a means of better defending itself. They've been talking about it for ages but really started getting the ball rolling when Putin attacked. NATO is a treaty organization which, if Ukraine does join, all the other members of NATO would be forced to come to its aid (i.e., literally all of them would be considered At War With Russia). On top of this, Russia has strong allies with a lot of anti-USA powers, including China. I wouldnt even be surprised if North Korea shows up. If this is starting to ring bells relating to the world wars in history class, good, because thats exactly what this scenario would entail. Another, open world war. Yes people scream 'world war 3' over the tiniest provocation but its just as foolish to claim its impossible. Add in that Putin has said he will gladly use nukes if he has to, and...well. you can put two and two together. It wont be a pretty picture.

Anyways, the middle east is, and has been, a central point in our proxy wars against Russia for ages. This is both because of the resources (oil) there, as well as its potential as a strong base of defense for the west against the east. Israel in particular is USA's biggest military defense resource, as they have a shit-ton of anti-ICBM (intercontinental ballistic missile) capabilities. Simply put, they serve as a bulwark against the forces of the east. They're also one of the biggest deterrants against all-out world war; because if anyone DOES try to send a nuke out west, we'll just blow it up before it hits us and then have Israel nuke them back, with far less time to defend.

So lets put ourselves in Joe's shoes knowing all of this. It starts to feel a bit like he HAS to keep giving Israel what they want in order to prevent world war 3 and/or nuclear holocaust, huh? This should also clarify why he said "If there were not an Israel in the middle east we would have to make one", and why he reportedly is very upset with all the Palestinean death yet still gives Israel weapons. Its a shitty appeasement tactic with an eye on global politics. (Side note: astute readers may also note that the actions regarding China are part of this, including the tik tok ban. They are correct.)

But does this make his actions correct? Fuck no. As many have noted Israel wouldnt even be able to continue existing without assistance from America, and Israel would likely be the first place to be destroyed by Russia if they seek to win, if it were weakened sufficiently. Meaning Joe could EASILY turn the tables on Israel and threaten to (or actually) cut them off and say "Fine, if you want to go that way then enjoy the hellfire that comes for us all, chuck." He could also decide to start rebuilding relations with China despite our differences, and therefore deprive Russia of allies in the world war 3 scenario. He could also build up these same defense systems in another middle eastern allied country (which I'd be against because colonialism is part of the problem). And that's simply taking it from the perspective of Joe, I, personally, do not think that America should remain in its current form. It has far more blood on its hands than just the Palestinean blood, and its destruction (preferably without nukes) could allow better things to take root.

Anyways, like I said, this is so that we might better defeat our enemies, so if you're wondering what the implications here are, I'd say start getting involved in politics at a local level. Not just protests, go to city council meetings! Its mostly boring stuff but once you get a hold on what it all means (and you will!) You'll start to see ways to shift the American culture away from this war-dependent fascistic society which has been surging so terrifyingly. You will start to see the glimmers of hope which shine through the sludge that it is American Politics.

Anyways if someone says this is a pro-Biden post im going to stab you with a million knives.

#politics #anti israel #anti zionism #anti joe biden #cw nuclear holocaust #cw war #anarchism

23 notes · View notes

zvaigzdelasas · 6 months

Text

[Reuters is Canadian-based Private Media]

Russia said on Thursday that it planned to build close ties with North Korea in all areas, a day after South Korea, Japan and the United States condemned what they said were weapons supplies from Pyongyang to Moscow.

Asked about the accusation by the three countries, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said: “There are many such reports, they are all groundless as a rule, there are no specifics. Such reports have been around for a long time. We see no point in commenting on this.”

He added: “North Korea is our neighbour and we continue and will continue to develop close relations in all areas.”

Pressed on whether weapons deliveries had taken place, Peskov said: “We don’t comment on this in any way.”

26 Oct 23

35 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 month

Text

In the waters of the South China Sea, Chinese coast guard vessels have clashed with Philippine ships. In the air above the Taiwan Strait, Chinese warplanes have challenged Taiwanese jet fighters. And in the valleys of the Himalayas, Chinese troops have fought Indian soldiers.

Across several frontiers, China has been using its armed forces to dispute territory not internationally recognized as part of China but nevertheless claimed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

In August 2023, Beijing laid out its current territorial claims for the world to see. The new edition of the standard map of China includes lands that are today a part of India and Russia, along with island territories such as Taiwan and comprehensive stretches of the East and South China Seas that are also claimed by Brunei, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam.

China often invokes historical narratives to justify these claims. Beijing, for example, has said that the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands, which it claims under the name of the Diaoyu Islands, “have been an inherent territory of China since ancient times.” Chinese officials have used the same words to back China’s right to parts of the northeastern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh. The Chinese government also claims that its sovereignty over the South China Sea is based on its own historic maritime maps.

However, in certain periods since ancient times China has also held sway over other states in the region—Mongolia, North Korea, South Korea, and Vietnam. Yet Beijing is currently not laying claim to any of these.

Instead, Beijing has embraced a selective irredentism, wielding specific chapters of China’s historical record when they suit existing aims and leaving former Chinese territories be when they don’t. Over time, as Beijing’s interests and power relations have shifted, some of these claims have faded from importance, while new ones have taken their place. Yet for Taiwan, Chinese claims remain unchanged, as the fate of the island state is tied to the very legitimacy of the CCP as well as the vitality of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s political vision.

Many of the CCP’s territorial claims have roots in the 19th and 20th centuries during the late rule of the Qing Dynasty. Following diplomatic pressure and repeated military defeats, the Qing Dynasty was forced to cede territory to several Western colonial powers, as well as the Russian and Japanese empires. These concessions are part of what are known in China as the “unequal treaties,” while the 100 years in which the treaties were signed and enforced are known as the “century of humiliation.” These territorial losses eventually passed from the dynasty to the Republic of China and then, following the Chinese Civil War, to the CCP. As a result, upon the CCP’s establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, the new Chinese state inherited outstanding territorial disputes with most of its neighbors.

But despite the humiliation the Qing Dynasty’s losses had caused, the CCP proved willing to compromise and reduce its territorial aims during times of high internal unrest. Following the Tibetan uprising in 1959, for instance, the CCP negotiated territorial settlements with countries bordering the Tibet region, including Myanmar, Nepal, and India. Similarly, when unrest rocked the Uyghur region in the 1960s and ‘90s, Beijing pursued territorial compromises with several bordering countries such as Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. In the aftermath of the Great Leap Forward in the early 1960s and the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, the CCP also pursued territorial settlements with Mongolia, Laos, and Vietnam in the hopes of securing China’s borders during times of domestic instability. Instead of pursuing diversionary wars, the CCP relied on diplomacy to settle border and territory disputes.

But China has changed quite a lot since then. In recent years, the CCP has avoided the inflammatory domestic political chaos of previous decades, and its once-tentative hold over border regions, such as Tibet and the Uyghur region, has been replaced by an iron grip. With this upper hand, the CCP has little incentive to pursue peaceful resolutions to remaining territorial disputes.

“China’s national power has increased significantly, reducing the benefits of compromise and enabling China to drive a much harder bargain,” said M. Taylor Fravel, a political science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In this context, the CCP has expanded its irredentist ambitions. After the discovery of potential oil reserves around the Senkaku Islands, and the United States’ return of the islands to Japan in the 1970s, Beijing drew on its historical record to lay claim to the islands, even though it had previously referred to them as part of the Japanese Ryukyu Islands. Similarly, though Beijing and Moscow settled a dispute over Heixiazi Island, located along China’s northeastern border, in 2004, the 2023 map of China depicted the entire island (ceded, along with vast Pacific territories, by the Qing Dynasty to the Russian Empire in 1860) as part of its domain, much to the ire of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Collin Koh Swee Lean, a senior fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, argues that the Chinese mapping of Heixiazi Island shows that Beijing holds on to certain core interests and simply waits for the opportune time to assert them.

“Given the current context of the war in Ukraine and Russia’s increased dependence on China, it might have appeared to Beijing that it has the chips in its pockets because, after all, Moscow needs Beijing more than the other way around,” Koh said on the German Marshall Fund’s China Global podcast.

This raises the question of whether territorial disputes that were settled during times of CCP weakness can be revisited and become subject to irredentist ambitions should power balances shift in China’s favor.

According to Steve Tsang, the director of the China Institute at the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies, there is currently a limit to how far the CCP will push territorial claims against Russia, since President Xi will need Russian support to sustain his grand ambitions for Chinese leadership on the global stage.

Although it would be a long shot, even Russia may not be safe from these ambitions indefinitely. Given that large swaths of Russia’s Pacific territories were part of China until 1860, “China could claim back the Russian Far East when it deems the time is right,” Tsang said. Such control would grant Beijing unrestricted access to the region’s abundance of coal, timber, tin, and gold while moving it geographically closer to its ambition of becoming an Arctic power.

While there is plenty of historical evidence pointing to former Chinese control over the southeastern portion of the Russian Far East, the historical record is less unequivocal about Chinese control over Taiwan. Anything resembling mainland Chinese control over Taiwan was not established until after 1684 by the Qing Dynasty, and even then central authority remained weak. In 1895, the Qing Dynasty ceded Taiwan to the Empire of Japan following the First Sino-Japanese War, and by the time Chinese authority was restored in 1945, Taiwan had undergone several decades of Japanization.

These details have not prevented the CCP from claiming that Taiwan has been an inalienable part of China since ancient times. Yet more than any other irredentist claim, Xi has made unification with Taiwan a major component of his vision to rejuvenate the Chinese nation.

Unification, however, has little to do with ancient history and more to do with the challenge that Taiwan presently poses to Xi’s aims, according to Chong Ja Ian, an associate professor who teaches about Chinese foreign policy at the National University of Singapore.

“The CCP pursues a Chinese nationalism that emphasizes unity and homogeneity centered around the CCP leadership while they also often claim that their single-party rule is acceptable to Chinese people,” Chong said.

In contrast, Taiwan holds free elections in which multiple political parties compete for the favor of a people that have increasingly developed an identity distinct from mainland China.

“The Taiwanese experience is a clear affront to the CCP narrative,” Chong said.

Control over Taiwan is also attractive to Beijing because it is key to unlocking the Chinese leadership’s broader ambition of maritime hegemony in waters where almost half of the world’s container fleet passed through in 2022.

As with the case of Taiwan, the CCP’s historical arguments regarding its claims on island groups and islets in the East and South China Seas are likewise much weaker than many of its land-based claims.

Instead, Chinese territorial intransigence in the maritime arena is more about a strategic shift in the value of the seas around China, Fravel said.

Today, it has been estimated that more than 21 percent of global trade passes through the South China Sea. And beneath these waters are not only subsea cables that carry sensitive internet data but also vast estimated reserves of oil and natural gas.

Although it may say otherwise, Beijing’s unwillingness to let up on its tenuous territorial maritime claims suggests that China is pursuing long-held ambitions and global aspirations rather than attempting to reverse past losses. So long as the CCP wields its historical record selectively and changeably to serve its aims—and is willing to back its claims up with military action—China’s neighbors will remain at risk.

18 notes · View notes

fatehbaz · 1 year

Text

The “goal of civilization” should be to get these delicious tropical pineapples shipped up to kitchen tables in St. Petersburg.

Much to consider here.

---

Anton Chekhov, it appears, was not the first Russian literary luminary to visit Hong Kong. Chekhov had stopped off in October 1890 and wrote about its “wonderful bay”. [...] But Chekhov was beaten to the punch by Ivan Goncharov who stopped by in 1853. Goncharov is now best now known for his novel Oblamov, but his bestseller at the time was a 700-page tome of travel-writing called The Frigate Pallada. Goncharov had been taken, as a sort of official scribe, on the Russian naval expedition sent to “open Japan”. If that sounds like American Commodore Matthew Perry’s expedition, it very much was: the Pallada arrived in Japan several weeks after Perry. The Pallada [...] went [...] via the Cape of Good Hope, Java, Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai, with side-trips to Manila, Korea and the Ryukyus. [...] Edyta M Bojanowska relates all this, and much more [in her book] [...]. Bojanowska uses Goncharov’s travelogue as a window on Russia, a window through which to view the European, and particularly British, imperial project [...].

---

Russia’s Pacific history is little known, perhaps even in Russia. [...]

In the library [...], I once came across a book entitled La Frontera ruso-mexicana: “The Russian-Mexican Border”. There actually was one in what is now California in the first part of the 1800s. Nikolai Rezanov had tried to open Japan in 1804; he got nowhere. (He did however continue on to North America and all the way down to San Francisco where he got engaged to Conchita, the [...] daughter of the Spanish governor, a story which became a late Soviet-era rock opera.)

---

Alaska ended up being sold to the United States a decade or so after Goncharov’s voyage. [...] Goncharov’s [book] [...] “strains to project an image of Russia as a confident and competent peer of European colonial empires.” [...] Goncharov was a product of his age. He was furthermore an anglophile and thought that the British had on the whole the right ideas about empire. (He did however find their ubiquity annoying: his idyll on Madeira is ruined by seeing so many of them. “They’re here too?” he wrote.) He would occasionally take the imperialists to task for some particularly egregious injustice, but he never questioned the enterprise. He just thought Russia should have a piece of the action.

---

Goncharov settled on Korea as a good potential target for Russia (“Goncharov Island” is now known as Mayang-do Island, the site of a North Korean missile base) [...]. The book hit the ground running, went through ten editions by the end of the century, and seems never really to have been out of print [...]. Singapore gets a slightly fuller treatment. Goncharov marvels at the pineapples piled up “like turnips”. “The goal of civilization,” Bojanowska quotes him, is to get these pineapples up to St Petersburg where they were currently unheard of luxury items. (Goncharov’s equating of capitalism with tropical fruit is reminiscent of the [...] [twentieth-century] fascination with bananas.)

---

Text by: Peter Gordon. A book review published under the title '“A World of Empires: The Russian Voyage of the Frigate Pallada” by Edyta M Bojanowska'. Published online in the Essays, Non-Fiction, and Reviews sections of Asian Review of Books. 10 July 2018. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Italicized first lines in this post added by me.]

#a lot going on here #soviet rock operas and goncharov island and russian mexican border and goncharovs love hate relationship with british empire #abolition #ecology #imperial #colonial

88 notes · View notes

tomorrowusa · 4 months

Text

Uganda is Africa's most homophobic country. And the hatred unleashed there by the government and extremist religious groups has led to violence.

A prominent Ugandan LGBTQ+ activist is in a critical condition after he was stabbed on his way to work on Wednesday by unknown assailants on a motorbike.

Steven Kabuye, 25, suffered knife wounds and was left for dead in the assault on the outskirts of the capital Kampala before being found by local residents, police said. Human rights defenders have been warning about the risk of attacks on members of the LGBTQ+ community after Uganda last year adopted what is considered one of the harshest anti-gay laws in the world. Kabuye told detectives investigating the incident that he had been receiving death threats, according to a statement issued by police spokesperson Patrick Onyango. “According to Mr Kabuye, two unidentified individuals on a motorcycle, wearing helmets, approached him. The passenger jumped off and attacked him, specifically targeting his neck with a knife,” Onyango said. “Kabuye managed to shield his neck with his right arm, resulting in a stab wound to his hand. Despite attempting to flee, the assailants chased and stabbed him in the stomach and left him for dead,” he said, adding that local residents had found him and taken him to a medical clinic.

You can in certain instances get the death penalty for being gay in Uganda. The assailants probably felt it was their duty to try to murder Steven Kabuye.

In May last year, Uganda adopted anti-gay legislation containing provisions making “aggravated homosexuality” a potentially capital offence and setting out penalties for consensual same-sex relations of up to life in prison. Homosexuality has long been illegal in Uganda under a colonial-era law criminalising sexual activity “against the order of nature”, with life imprisonment possible for a conviction. The new law added further offences and punishments. Kabuye had posted on X that he was deeply concerned about the consequences of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023. “This law violates basic human rights and sets a dangerous precedent for discrimination and persecution against the LGBTQ+ community. Let us stand together in solidarity and fight against bigotry and hate,” he wrote.

Uganda is a good place to avoid even if locals just think you are LGBTQ+.

Uganda's homophobic President Yoweri Museveni seized power in January of 1986. That's so long ago that the Space Shuttle Challenger was still intact when he began his reign as de facto president for life. According to the journal Foreign Policy, Museveni may be looking to turn Uganda into a North Korea-style monarchy without crowns.

Politics in Uganda has become a parable of dynastic decay. For 37 years, President Yoweri Museveni has ruled with a supporting cast of relatives, army officers, and hangers-on. They see themselves as the only ones capable of running the country—and have profited handsomely from doing so. Museveni has twice had the constitution rewritten to remove limits on his rule. But he is now 78, and he cannot rewrite biology. Enter his 49-year-old son, Muhoozi Kainerugaba: a hard-drinking, trash-tweeting soldier who considers himself “the most handsome General on earth.” After a rapid promotion through the army ranks, Kainerugaba says he wants to run for president at the next election in 2026.

Uganda is part of the corrupt Axis of Homophobia which includes Russia and Iran. It deserves the same opprobrium which is directed at those decrepit régimes.

#lgbtq+#homophobia #steven kabuye #uganda #violence against gays #the axis of homophobia #yoweri museveni #muhoozi kainerugaba

35 notes · View notes

unhonestlymirror · 7 months

Note

This is random, sudden, stupid, non-hetalia related question, but how do you feel about with the way communism gets treated/discused on the internet, especially by people who didn't live under communism regime?

I used to not think much about that Buggs Bunny communism meme

But now when I look back at it, a tiny part of me feels like these whole "OUR [object] memes take the easy way of talking about communism. (That's not to say making jokes is not allowed), but it kinda comes across and potraying communism in a good light - like it's better than capitalism, for example.

Everyone gets treated equally, right? It's not like people died. It's not like there was limited ammount of food for people that people would have to use whatever theh could find at home to eat. It's not like staning out was frowned upon because you were expected to be blend in with others. It's not like owning too much in ussrs eyes would get you be seen as a treat.

And I'm aware I'm not qualified to discuss this. I didn't live through those times and not very knowlegable outside what I recall. I don't want to say the wrong thing, but even so.

So how do you feel about this?

I think the biggest communism fans actually deserve to taste their beloved communism: just some random people coming in your house and stealing everything yours and make it "ours", a government which kills any manifestation of individuality, thousands of concentration camps of free labour. I think they deserve to experience that. For some reason, I don't see many English speaking communism fans wanting to be deported to Belarus or China or North Korea or russia, their beloved communist countries.(although they don't call themselves communist countries, they actually pretty much are).

Ngl, I used to find this meme a bit funny until I realised people are dead serious about it. This trend became popular because of Pewdiepie, the most "popular" and one of the most paid YT bloggers. I would not be surprised if his sponsors were russian or Chinese.

In general, I don't really care about communism fans because 99% of them are just stupid and uneducated, and I don't wanna waste my time on them.

#ask #communism

18 notes · View notes

dreaminginthedeepsouth · 4 months

Text

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

January 4, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JAN 5, 2024

The Democrats on the House Oversight Committee today released a 156-page report showing that when he was in the presidency, Trump received at least $7.8 million from 20 different governments, including those of China, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Malaysia, through businesses he owned.

The Democrats brought receipts.

According to the report—and the documents from Trump’s former accounting firm Mazars that are attached to it—the People’s Republic of China and companies substantially controlled by the PRC government paid at least $5,572,548 to Trump-owned properties while Trump was in office; Saudi Arabia paid at least $615,422; Qatar paid at least $465,744; Kuwait paid at least $300,000; India paid at least $282,764; Malaysia paid at least $248,962; Afghanistan paid at least $154,750; the Philippines paid at least $74,810; the United Arab Emirates paid at least $65,225. The list went on and on.

The committee Democrats explained that these payments were likely only a fraction of the actual money exchanged, since they cover only four of more than 500 entities Trump owned at the time. When the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in January 2023, Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-KY) stopped the investigation before Mazars had produced the documents the committee had asked for when Democrats were in charge of it. Those records included documents relating to Russia, South Korea, South Africa, and Brazil.

Trump fought hard against the production of these documents, dragging out the court fight until September 2022. The committee worked on them for just four months before voters put Republicans in charge of the House and the investigation stopped.

These are the first hard numbers that show how foreign governments funneled money to the president while policies involving their countries were in front of him. The report notes, for example, that Trump refused to impose sanctions on Chinese banks that were helping the North Korean government; one of those banks was paying him close to $2 million in rent annually for commercial office space in Trump Tower.

The first article of the U.S. Constitution reads: “[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument [that is, salary, fee, or profit], Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

The report also contrasted powerfully with the attempt of Republicans on the Oversight Committee, led by Comer, to argue that Democratic Joe Biden has corruptly profited from the presidency.

In the Washington Post on December 26, 2023, Philip Bump noted that just after voters elected a Republican majority, Comer told the Washington Post that as soon as he was in charge of the Oversight Committee, he would use his power to “determine if this president and this White House are compromised because of the millions of dollars that his family has received from our adversaries in China, Russia and Ukraine.”

For the past year, while he and the committee have made a number of highly misleading statements to make it sound as if there are Biden family businesses involving the president (there are not) and the president was involved in them (he was not), their claims were never backed by any evidence. Bump noted in a piece on December 14, 2023, for example, that Comer told Fox News Channel personality Maria Bartiromo that “the Bidens” have “taken in” more than $24 million. In fact, Bump explained, Biden’s son Hunter and his business partners did receive such payments, but most of the money went to the business partners. About $7.5 million of it went to Hunter Biden. There is no evidence that any of it went to Joe Biden.

All of the committee’s claims have similar reality checks. Jonathan Yerushalmy of The Guardian wrote that after nearly 40,000 pages of bank records and dozens of hours of testimony, “no evidence has emerged that Biden acted corruptly or accepted bribes in his current or previous role.”

Still, the constant hyping of their claims on right-wing media led then–House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to authorize an impeachment inquiry in mid-September, and in mid-December, Republicans in the House formalized the inquiry.

There is more behind the attack on Biden than simply trying to even the score between him and Trump—who remains angry at his impeachments and has demanded Republicans retaliate—or to smear Biden through an “investigation,” which has been a standard technique of the Republicans since the mid-1990s.

Claiming that Biden is as corrupt as Trump undermines faith in our democracy. After all, if everyone is a crook, why does it matter which one is in office? And what makes American democracy any different from the authoritarian systems of Russia or Hungary or Venezuela, where leaders grab what they can for themselves and their followers?

Democracies are different from authoritarian governments because they have laws to prevent the corruption in which it appears Trump engaged. The fact that Republicans refuse to hold their own party members accountable to those laws while smearing their opponents says far more about them than it does about the nature of democracy.

It does, though, highlight that our democracy is in danger.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

#corrupt GOP #corruption #letters from an american #heather cox richardson #Emolument

17 notes · View notes

onesettleronebullet · 4 months

Text

Also, why are people in the notes of that post bringing up North Korea in relation to China and Russia as if they're in any way comparable.

North Korea is literally closer to the Congo than to China and Russia in terms of its economic context - it is not exploiting poorer nations.

#newpad.txt

12 notes · View notes

collapsedsquid · 1 year

Text

A Japanese or South Korean attempt to obtain nuclear weapons would be risky in many ways. It could trigger a preemptive strike—by North Korea against South Korea, for example. Even if it did not provoke an aggressive response, however, it could result in unwelcome diplomatic outcomes. It would put a serious strain on relations with the United States, which serves as the “policeman” of nonproliferation.

Thus a more likely scenario involves these countries adopting a nuclear opacity posture similar to that developed by Israel. Indeed, as the American “unipolar moment” fades, nuclear opacity may become an increasingly attractive option for regional powers facing growing geopolitical risks—and such opaque proliferation might be in line with U.S. interests as well. [...] Bilahari Kausikan argues that for Japan or South Korea there is no other way. An Asia in which not only China, North Korea, Russia, or India but also Japan and South Korea possess nuclear weapons, Kausikan argues, will be more stable, even if this stability would be preceded by a period of uncertainty. “Independent nuclear deterrents,” asserts Kausikan, “will keep Japan and South Korea within the U.S. alliance system. With India and Pakistan in the equation, a multipolar nuclear regional balance will freeze the existing configuration of the Indo-Pacific, preventing its domination by any single major power.” He goes on to explain that this would be tantamount to the end of the “China Dream,” insofar as the latter means a hierarchical order in Asia with the PRC at the top. Perhaps, then, the path to multipolar stability in Asia leads through nuclear opacity.

37 notes · View notes

usafphantom2 · 25 days

Text

Russian cargo aircraft would be making secret flights to North Korea, allegedly looking for missiles

Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 03/30/2024 - 21:15 in Military

A huge An-124 cargo plane with an alleged history of North Korean weapons smuggling was tracked back from an apparent mission to seek more short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs) provided by the Kim Jong Un regime.

A recent report by Colin Zwirko of NK News shed light on secret flights conducted by two Russian military aircraft to North Korea.

Russian An-124 (RA-82030) returning to Vladivostok from North Korea in the early hours of March 21, 2024 (Photo: Flightradar24 screenshot)

Russian An-124 (RA-82030) departing from Vladivostok before going to North Korea after 2 a.m. (North Korea time) on March 21, 2024. (Photo: Flightradar screenshot24)

The flight tracking data analyzed by Zwirko suggest that a Russian cargo plane An-224 (tail number RA-82030) - one of the largest transport aircraft in the world - was traveling from the DPRK towards Vladivostok, east of the shared border coast of the two countries at 6:47 a.m. (North Korea time) on March 21. It is likely that the plane went to Pyongyang, since another Russian government aircraft, a Tupolev Tu-154 of the "Special Flight Squadron" (tail number RA-85843), flew from Vladivostok to Pyongyang hours earlier, pointing to ongoing secret exchanges between Russia and North Korea.

Russian Tu-154 (RA-85843) flying from Pyongyang to Vladivostok after midnight on March 21, 2024. (Photo: Flightradar screenshot24)

Russian Tu-154 (RA-85843) flying from Pyongyang to Vladivostok on the afternoon of March 22, 2024. (Photo: Flightradar screenshot24)

This plane departed from the Russian city of the Far East just before midnight on March 20, before landing in Pyongyang after 12:24 a.m. (North Korea time) on March 21. He then left Pyongyang for Vladivostok less than two hours later, about the same time the cargo plane left Vladivostok. Then he turned off the transponder and disappeared from tracking, a common practice for Russian aircraft and cargo ships that were sighted in North Korea. Flights with the Tu-154 did not have their transponder turned off to Pyongyang.

According to the NK News report, several other flights were observed on monitoring sites.

Of particular interest is the involvement of the 224ª Flight Unit and the An-124 cargo plane with tail number RA-82030, which were previously implicated by the U.S. Treasury Department in sanctions related to the transfer of ballistic missiles from the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Despite these allegations, the precise nature and timing of such transactions remain unknown.

Tupolev Tu-154 (RA-85843).

The US and South Korea accused the Kim Jong Un regime of providing the Kremlin with missiles, artillery grenades and other weapons to replenish the Russian armed forces while it uses equipment and ammunition in its invasion of Ukraine. Both Moscow and Pyongyang denied that such transfers are taking place.

The recent flight activity coincides with the escalation of tensions in the region, following the North Korean ballistic missile test conducted by leader Kim Jong Un. Although the specific cargo carried by the Russian aircraft remains unknown, intelligence reports suggest the potential transport of short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs).

The ability of the An-124 cargo plane to carry large and heavy weapon systems further amplifies the seizures around the purpose of these secret flights.

South Korea's Chosun News TV reported on the cargo plane on Saturday, citing a comment from an anonymous source of "ROK-US intelligence authority", but not including details such as model, final number or moment.

The source would have said that intelligence agencies caught the plane carrying 15-meter-long cargo "supposedly SRBMs". Allegedly, these were Hwasong-11 series missiles (KN-23).

The apparent stop of the aircraft in Pyongyang occurred a few days after the North Korean supreme leader, Kim Jong Un, presided over his country's first ballistic missile test in two months.

Tags: Antonov An-124 RuslanMilitary AviationNorth KoreaRussian Air ForceTu-154

Sharing

Fernando Valduga

Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Dayton Airshow and FIDAE. He has works published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. He uses Canon equipment during his photographic work in the world of aviation.