4 ms·

The ministry of propaganda in China runs an English language international news channel available as an IPTV stream (https://tvexplorer.live/ https://tvexplorer

The ministry of propaganda in China runs an English language international news channel available as an IPTV stream (https://tvexplorer.live/ https://tvexplorer.live/) If you want a better understanding of which world events China is not happy about, tuning in there to see what they cover unfavorably has been useful for me. They seem to be very unhappy about Japan building up its war fighting capacity.

isityettime 17d ago
> They seem to be very unhappy about Japan building up its war fighting capacity. Maybe because of Japan's history of horrific war crimes and occupation in China? You know, the actual imperial conquest for which their constitution prohibits them from having a standing air force?
- DaSHacka 17d ago
  +15 Social Credit!
- deleted 17d ago
  [deleted]
- conception 17d ago
  Por que no los dos?
- carefree-bob 17d ago
  I fail to see the logic here, can you spell this out for me? Are you saying: 1. Japan pissed off other countries and therefore does not need to defend itself from this greater threat? 2. Japan pissed off other countries and therefore should not be allowed to defend itself from this greater threat? It should just be conquered as a type of moral punishment (wasn't Japan already nuked, conquered, and occupied? Wasn't that enough? If not, why not?) 3. There is no greater threat. That Japan pissed off countries in the past has no bearing on the level of threat facing Japan today, in which case they should be allowed to spend as much as their neighbors on defense and the past is a non-issue. 4. There is a negative threat -- that Japan pissed off countries in the past means that they are now more secure and therefore less in need of defense? Which of these are you arguing? I am a little lost about how Japan committing war crimes in the past means they do need to spend as much on defense today, as this is a very counterintuitive claim, and it appears you are arguing for 4 or, if a dark personality, for 2. In which case, I'd like you to spell it out for the community to hear.
  - amdivia 17d ago
    I think its 5. that it is understandable for some countries to fear and be concerned when Japan arms itself. it's not a statement on what should be and shouldn't be, but rather attempting to provide reasons as to why China might not like this move, without resorting to claims of propaganda or the fear being illegitement
    - zabana 17d ago
      The irony of westerners accusing china of propaganda will never be lost on me.
      - deleted 17d ago
        [deleted]
      - r3trohack3r 17d ago
        I’m not sure it’s an accusation. It’s a state owned news network managed under the Central Propaganda Department. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicity_Department_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicity_Department_of_the_Ch...
    - carefree-bob 17d ago
      The emotional reaction you are describing is just 'I don't like Japan, therefore any news of Japan increasing its defense makes me upset', and honestly I don't think this sentiment has any reasoning behind it, and doesn't need to be justified or defended, but in the same manner, it doesn't need to be heeded. Nations don't make security decisions based on the hatred of other nationals, or whatever hurt feelings they might have, they make spending decisions based on their own security needs. In the case of Japan, it has serious security needs because the US is much weaker now and cannot provide a defense shield, whereas China is both much stronger and also is making expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea. That calls for more defense spending just as a rational response. It also calls for Japan to update its constitution as the postwar arrangement comes to an end, which they will do, and they will also develop nuclear weapons. Honestly it makes no sense for South Korea to not have a nuke if North Korea does. When you have a conflict between two nations, and one acquires nuclear weapons, the other side is driven to do the same. Look at India and Pakistan. In the past, the US kept a lid on things because it had such overwhelming dominance that it could be a global policeman and in that environment, individual nations didn't need to provide for their own defense, they had a policeman to back them. But that era is now over, and as much as people complained about the US strutting around like a global cop, they are about to see the consequences of a world without a global cop -- that is, the world as it normally exists. In that world, it makes no sense for Japan to not have a nuke if North Korea and China does, and soon South Korea will, too. My guess is that South Korea will go nuclear first. Just as it makes no sense for Iran to not have a nuke if Israel does. This is not a matter of hurt feelings, it is a matter of security balancing. It doesn't matter if you don't like Iran, or if you do like it, it's just a question of nations taking care of their own survival. All of this will happen, and we will look back on the period of non-proliferation as being an artifact of US global dominance, understanding that as US military dominance fades, nations will turn to measures of self-help in a hostile world. The whole world is changing, and we should face it with clarity and wisdom, not with hurt feelings. There are all sorts of repercussions to global trade, to global security arrangements, that are changing right now, and it helps to have your eyes open and think "well, how would each nation respond to this new threat environment" in a deliberate and realist perspective, rather than whether you like a given country or not. One example is what is happening right now in Saudi Arabia. The US promised to be Saudi's security guarantor in 1945, and historically the US has done this, but this is a role that the US can no longer play, so Saudi Arabia is now being beaten by Yemen, and is desperately appealing to the US for help, but there is little the US can do. Now Saudi Arabia is in a pickle -- it will also turn to nuclear weapons. One thing to think about is the moral hazard of these types of security guarantees - they incentivize client states to provoke their enemies, in this case Saudi Arabia invading and occupying Yemen, installing a puppet government, and blockading the nation. When you have the US at your back, you can take these provocative actions. But then comes a moment when you look behind and the Big Brother is no longer there. Then we can look at Europe, you have this demilitarized continent that is doing things like seizing Russian ships because they are confident that the US will step and fight a war with Russia on their behalf. Well, they are going to learn that reality has changed and the US no longer has the power projection capability it once did. And what will they do? My guess is that at least one European state will nuclearize. We are going to see major shifts happen as nations regionalize, many nations nuclearize, and new regional trade blocs form that disrupt global capital flows that we have taken for granted, especially if you formed your view of reality in the era when there was a Global Cop that had your back.
- bulbar 17d ago
  Germany is also pumping a lot of money into Military. Nobody in Europe seems to mind. Pretty sure China is unhappy not for history reason, but because of the current situation, which is that China tries to establish military dominance in the region and wants to invade Taiwan.
  - akk0 17d ago
    > nobody in Europe seems to mind It's maybe not part of the public discourse so much, but I regularly hear ordinary people express their concern about this
  - rozab 17d ago
    Germany does not have public shrines to the perpetrators of genocide which heads of state pay respects at. There was no Kniefall von Warschau for Japan.
- throw0101a 17d ago
  > Maybe because of Japan's history of horrific war crimes and occupation in China? I'm sure Uyghurs and Tibetans have an opinion on the pot calling the kettle black.
- leereeves 17d ago
  Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't imagine modern Japan being a threat to modern China. That seems like David (Japan) vs Goliath, but unlikely to have the mythical outcome.
philipov 17d ago
The person you're afraid of conquering you not liking that you're trying to defend yourself against conquest is not an argument against doing that.
- svpk 17d ago
  I don't think anything in their post said otherwise. I assumed they were just adding more evidence on to what the previous commenter was saying.
- djtango 17d ago
  The strange and ironic thing here is that the subject and object of this statement can be either country. My wife is from Manchuria and my father is from Singapore. As much as my wife and I like the Japan of today, Japan appeared less favourably in our family history.
  - deleted 17d ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 17d ago
  [deleted]
Walf 17d ago
Japan is never going to voluntarily attack China. Even if there was a desire to, they know they could not win. Any military build up by the former is due to fear of the latter.
- 0manrho 17d ago
  Japan probably won't not attack China (I don't see why they would, not proactively at least), that's not what was being asserted. Japan however may defend Taiwan or allies/neighbors in the south china sea should things go hot there elsewise. And Japan have stated at least some interest in doing so which means that if China wants Taiwan, they might have to contend with japan. These sort of things can work as a deterrent as much as power projection, and they don't have to get into direct violent/physical conflict for there to be diplomatic tension/worsening of relations as a result. I'm not saying this is most effective use of Japan's resources or focus or that China is for sure going to do anything or making any other such claims, just explaining the potential rational for why China would be non-plussed at Japan over F35 purchases even if they don't feel Japan is gunning for them. Of course, if china has no actual wartime intentions in Japans sphere of influence, then yeah, they probably give much less of a shit. So depends on what their intentions really are as to how they feel about it. The fact that they're publicly broadcasting displeasure is probably not a sign that they're cool with it though.
  - Walf 17d ago
    Any protest from China is just painting themselves as being in a defensive position, whilst they make claims over the oceans and territories that the international community disagrees with. Very much not defensive acts.
    - stickfigure 17d ago
      It's the Putin playbook. "It's NATO's fault we need to kill Ukranians!"
      - hdgvhicv 17d ago
ashley95 17d ago
I presume you mean CGTN?
deleted 17d ago
[deleted]
aussieguy1234 17d ago
>They seem to be very unhappy about Japan building up its war fighting capacity. Could be a strategy going on here. Before they invaded Ukraine, Russia criticized Ukrainian military buildup as "destabalising". Probably with full knowledge of their own plans to invade.
- lenkite 17d ago
  Russia also criticized the ethnic cleansing of Donbass via artillery strikes on civilian areas - casualties and deaths reported daily in the LPR and DPR media, but never made a single peep in the Western news.
  - hdgvhicv 17d ago
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/russias-superior-new-weapons/2016/08/05/e86334ec-08c5-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/russ... https://time.com/3042640/satellite-russian-ukraine-shelling/ https://time.com/3042640/satellite-russian-ukraine-shelling/ Those strikes?
    - lenkite 17d ago
      I meant the strikes while the Minsk ceasefire was in effect - one that was admitted to by Merkel to merely buy time for Ukraine's arms build-up into the 3rd largest European military. And then used effectively to shell and kill Russian civilians including children. Not a SINGLE word in the Western media. There dozens of such daily reports in 2021 marking deaths and casualties as very banal. Never made a peep in the Western news. https://antimaydan.info//opolchenie_novorossii/svodki_ot_opolcheniya_novorossii_poslednie_svodki_s_frontov_dnr_i_lnr.html https://antimaydan.info//opolchenie_novorossii/svodki_ot_opo... https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/2021-04-06_SMM_Daily_Report_Vienna.pdf https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/2021-04-06_SMM_Dail... https://www.interfax-russia.ru/military/news/547769 https://www.interfax-russia.ru/military/news/547769
      - hdgvhicv 17d ago
ImPostingOnHN 17d ago
> They seem to be very unhappy about Japan building up its war fighting capacity. Much in the same way the same people are upset about Taiwan, the Phillipines, the USA, etc. are building up their military capacity. Also much in the same way russia is unhappy about Ukraine building up its war fighting capacity. The unhappiness could come from multiple things, but given China has themselves built up their own war fighting capacity to a much greater degree, it seems the primary motivation is seeking hegemony.

isityettime 17d ago

> They seem to be very unhappy about Japan building up its war fighting capacity. Maybe because of Japan's history of horrific war crimes and occupation in China? You know, the actual imperial conquest for which their constitution prohibits them from having a standing air force?

DaSHacka 17d ago
+15 Social Credit!
deleted 17d ago
[deleted]
conception 17d ago
Por que no los dos?
carefree-bob 17d ago
I fail to see the logic here, can you spell this out for me? Are you saying: 1. Japan pissed off other countries and therefore does not need to defend itself from this greater threat? 2. Japan pissed off other countries and therefore should not be allowed to defend itself from this greater threat? It should just be conquered as a type of moral punishment (wasn't Japan already nuked, conquered, and occupied? Wasn't that enough? If not, why not?) 3. There is no greater threat. That Japan pissed off countries in the past has no bearing on the level of threat facing Japan today, in which case they should be allowed to spend as much as their neighbors on defense and the past is a non-issue. 4. There is a negative threat -- that Japan pissed off countries in the past means that they are now more secure and therefore less in need of defense? Which of these are you arguing? I am a little lost about how Japan committing war crimes in the past means they do need to spend as much on defense today, as this is a very counterintuitive claim, and it appears you are arguing for 4 or, if a dark personality, for 2. In which case, I'd like you to spell it out for the community to hear.
- amdivia 17d ago
  I think its 5. that it is understandable for some countries to fear and be concerned when Japan arms itself. it's not a statement on what should be and shouldn't be, but rather attempting to provide reasons as to why China might not like this move, without resorting to claims of propaganda or the fear being illegitement
  - zabana 17d ago
    The irony of westerners accusing china of propaganda will never be lost on me.
    - deleted 17d ago
      [deleted]
    - r3trohack3r 17d ago
      I’m not sure it’s an accusation. It’s a state owned news network managed under the Central Propaganda Department. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicity_Department_of_the_Chinese_Communist_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicity_Department_of_the_Ch...
  - carefree-bob 17d ago
    The emotional reaction you are describing is just 'I don't like Japan, therefore any news of Japan increasing its defense makes me upset', and honestly I don't think this sentiment has any reasoning behind it, and doesn't need to be justified or defended, but in the same manner, it doesn't need to be heeded. Nations don't make security decisions based on the hatred of other nationals, or whatever hurt feelings they might have, they make spending decisions based on their own security needs. In the case of Japan, it has serious security needs because the US is much weaker now and cannot provide a defense shield, whereas China is both much stronger and also is making expansive territorial claims in the South China Sea. That calls for more defense spending just as a rational response. It also calls for Japan to update its constitution as the postwar arrangement comes to an end, which they will do, and they will also develop nuclear weapons. Honestly it makes no sense for South Korea to not have a nuke if North Korea does. When you have a conflict between two nations, and one acquires nuclear weapons, the other side is driven to do the same. Look at India and Pakistan. In the past, the US kept a lid on things because it had such overwhelming dominance that it could be a global policeman and in that environment, individual nations didn't need to provide for their own defense, they had a policeman to back them. But that era is now over, and as much as people complained about the US strutting around like a global cop, they are about to see the consequences of a world without a global cop -- that is, the world as it normally exists. In that world, it makes no sense for Japan to not have a nuke if North Korea and China does, and soon South Korea will, too. My guess is that South Korea will go nuclear first. Just as it makes no sense for Iran to not have a nuke if Israel does. This is not a matter of hurt feelings, it is a matter of security balancing. It doesn't matter if you don't like Iran, or if you do like it, it's just a question of nations taking care of their own survival. All of this will happen, and we will look back on the period of non-proliferation as being an artifact of US global dominance, understanding that as US military dominance fades, nations will turn to measures of self-help in a hostile world. The whole world is changing, and we should face it with clarity and wisdom, not with hurt feelings. There are all sorts of repercussions to global trade, to global security arrangements, that are changing right now, and it helps to have your eyes open and think "well, how would each nation respond to this new threat environment" in a deliberate and realist perspective, rather than whether you like a given country or not. One example is what is happening right now in Saudi Arabia. The US promised to be Saudi's security guarantor in 1945, and historically the US has done this, but this is a role that the US can no longer play, so Saudi Arabia is now being beaten by Yemen, and is desperately appealing to the US for help, but there is little the US can do. Now Saudi Arabia is in a pickle -- it will also turn to nuclear weapons. One thing to think about is the moral hazard of these types of security guarantees - they incentivize client states to provoke their enemies, in this case Saudi Arabia invading and occupying Yemen, installing a puppet government, and blockading the nation. When you have the US at your back, you can take these provocative actions. But then comes a moment when you look behind and the Big Brother is no longer there. Then we can look at Europe, you have this demilitarized continent that is doing things like seizing Russian ships because they are confident that the US will step and fight a war with Russia on their behalf. Well, they are going to learn that reality has changed and the US no longer has the power projection capability it once did. And what will they do? My guess is that at least one European state will nuclearize. We are going to see major shifts happen as nations regionalize, many nations nuclearize, and new regional trade blocs form that disrupt global capital flows that we have taken for granted, especially if you formed your view of reality in the era when there was a Global Cop that had your back.
bulbar 17d ago
Germany is also pumping a lot of money into Military. Nobody in Europe seems to mind. Pretty sure China is unhappy not for history reason, but because of the current situation, which is that China tries to establish military dominance in the region and wants to invade Taiwan.
- akk0 17d ago
  > nobody in Europe seems to mind It's maybe not part of the public discourse so much, but I regularly hear ordinary people express their concern about this
- rozab 17d ago
  Germany does not have public shrines to the perpetrators of genocide which heads of state pay respects at. There was no Kniefall von Warschau for Japan.
throw0101a 17d ago
> Maybe because of Japan's history of horrific war crimes and occupation in China? I'm sure Uyghurs and Tibetans have an opinion on the pot calling the kettle black.
leereeves 17d ago
Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't imagine modern Japan being a threat to modern China. That seems like David (Japan) vs Goliath, but unlikely to have the mythical outcome.

philipov 17d ago

The person you're afraid of conquering you not liking that you're trying to defend yourself against conquest is not an argument against doing that.

svpk 17d ago
I don't think anything in their post said otherwise. I assumed they were just adding more evidence on to what the previous commenter was saying.
djtango 17d ago
The strange and ironic thing here is that the subject and object of this statement can be either country. My wife is from Manchuria and my father is from Singapore. As much as my wife and I like the Japan of today, Japan appeared less favourably in our family history.
- deleted 17d ago
  [deleted]
deleted 17d ago
[deleted]

Walf 17d ago

Japan is never going to voluntarily attack China. Even if there was a desire to, they know they could not win. Any military build up by the former is due to fear of the latter.

0manrho 17d ago
Japan probably won't not attack China (I don't see why they would, not proactively at least), that's not what was being asserted. Japan however may defend Taiwan or allies/neighbors in the south china sea should things go hot there elsewise. And Japan have stated at least some interest in doing so which means that if China wants Taiwan, they might have to contend with japan. These sort of things can work as a deterrent as much as power projection, and they don't have to get into direct violent/physical conflict for there to be diplomatic tension/worsening of relations as a result. I'm not saying this is most effective use of Japan's resources or focus or that China is for sure going to do anything or making any other such claims, just explaining the potential rational for why China would be non-plussed at Japan over F35 purchases even if they don't feel Japan is gunning for them. Of course, if china has no actual wartime intentions in Japans sphere of influence, then yeah, they probably give much less of a shit. So depends on what their intentions really are as to how they feel about it. The fact that they're publicly broadcasting displeasure is probably not a sign that they're cool with it though.
- Walf 17d ago
  Any protest from China is just painting themselves as being in a defensive position, whilst they make claims over the oceans and territories that the international community disagrees with. Very much not defensive acts.
  - stickfigure 17d ago
    It's the Putin playbook. "It's NATO's fault we need to kill Ukranians!"
    - hdgvhicv 17d ago

ashley95 17d ago

I presume you mean CGTN?

deleted 17d ago

[deleted]

aussieguy1234 17d ago

>They seem to be very unhappy about Japan building up its war fighting capacity. Could be a strategy going on here. Before they invaded Ukraine, Russia criticized Ukrainian military buildup as "destabalising". Probably with full knowledge of their own plans to invade.

lenkite 17d ago
Russia also criticized the ethnic cleansing of Donbass via artillery strikes on civilian areas - casualties and deaths reported daily in the LPR and DPR media, but never made a single peep in the Western news.
- hdgvhicv 17d ago
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/russias-superior-new-weapons/2016/08/05/e86334ec-08c5-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/russ... https://time.com/3042640/satellite-russian-ukraine-shelling/ https://time.com/3042640/satellite-russian-ukraine-shelling/ Those strikes?
  - lenkite 17d ago
    I meant the strikes while the Minsk ceasefire was in effect - one that was admitted to by Merkel to merely buy time for Ukraine's arms build-up into the 3rd largest European military. And then used effectively to shell and kill Russian civilians including children. Not a SINGLE word in the Western media. There dozens of such daily reports in 2021 marking deaths and casualties as very banal. Never made a peep in the Western news. https://antimaydan.info//opolchenie_novorossii/svodki_ot_opolcheniya_novorossii_poslednie_svodki_s_frontov_dnr_i_lnr.html https://antimaydan.info//opolchenie_novorossii/svodki_ot_opo... https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/2021-04-06_SMM_Daily_Report_Vienna.pdf https://www.osce.org/sites/default/files/2021-04-06_SMM_Dail... https://www.interfax-russia.ru/military/news/547769 https://www.interfax-russia.ru/military/news/547769
    - hdgvhicv 17d ago

ImPostingOnHN 17d ago

> They seem to be very unhappy about Japan building up its war fighting capacity. Much in the same way the same people are upset about Taiwan, the Phillipines, the USA, etc. are building up their military capacity. Also much in the same way russia is unhappy about Ukraine building up its war fighting capacity. The unhappiness could come from multiple things, but given China has themselves built up their own war fighting capacity to a much greater degree, it seems the primary motivation is seeking hegemony.