Illustrative Image
Lithuania miscalculated responses to its escalation with China.
Written by Paul Antonopoulos, independent geopolitical analyst
The Anglo Alliance (US, UK and Australia, or AUKUS) and Taiwan have enthusiastically expressed their support for the European Union’s complaint on Chinese economic policies against Lithuania. Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the UK’s secretary of state for international trade, said on Twitter on February 7 that London “will request to join the EU’s WTO consultation into these measures as a third party to ensure we combat economic coercion in trade together.” In effect, the Anglo Alliance are latching onto the EU’s complaint to the World Trade Organization in an attempt to portray a united Western front against China, but this far from the actual reality.
Relations between Lithuania and China deteriorated after the opening of a Taiwanese representative office – a de facto embassy – in Vilnius. In response, Beijing significantly downgraded its diplomatic relations with the Baltic country and Lithuanian exporters are finding it difficult to do business with China.
Western media also reported that China began putting pressure on transnational corporations, such as German tire maker Continental. China, as European companies complain, insist that any product made or sourced in Lithuania, even partly, cannot be imported into the country.
Vilnius now attempts to frame itself as a victim of an “economic bully” rather than the instigator of a political and diplomatic crisis. According to Lithuanian Foreign Minister Gabrielius Landsbergis, Vilnius cannot take retaliatory measures as it must comply with the European Union’s customs system. Because of this limitation, Landsbergis had no choice but to call on Brussels to assist in Lithuania’s unprovoked escalation with China.
However, it was Taipei and not Brussels that quickly offered Lithuania assistance by buying 20,400 bottles of alcohol originally intended for mainland China. The government of the “rebel province,” as Beijing terms Taiwan’s ruling authorities, then promised to open a $200 million investment fund for Lithuania’s strategic industries, in addition to a $1 billion line of credit for Lithuania to finance commercial projects.
Unlike Taiwan, Brussels for its part is in no hurry to take concrete measures against China for the sake of Lithuania. In Europe, there is currently no common approach in relations with the East Asian country. For many EU members, especially Germany, China remains the most important consumer market for products. For Mediterranean EU countries, especially Greece, China has been a lifeline for desperately needed investment, especially during the previous decade’s recession.
Effectively, the majority of the EU are not ready to give up China for the sake of a minnow country like Lithuania. This harsh realisation is summed up by Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda begrudgingly admitting that the decision to rename Taipei’s representative office to “Taiwan” was a mistake.
None-the-less, now the EU has finally responded to Vilnius’ call for help by submitting an application to the World Trade Organization (WTO) about China’s retaliatory actions. However, it is not clear what role the WTO can play in making China change its policies when Lithuania instigated the crisis to begin with and refuses to end its provocation.
In addition, the complaint was made when the WTO is in the midst of an internal institutional crisis caused by the US. Currently, the WTO Appellate Body does not have a new arbitrator as the US is blocking new appointments. Although the WTO’s main dispute settlement body continues to operate, the enforcement of its decisions has become completely non-binding.
Brussels perhaps recognizes the ineffectiveness of the WTO in the current situation and is only making a symbolic gesture to maintain the façade of a united Western front against so-called common adversaries, i.e. China’s economic and trade policy.
In fact, even the Anglo Alliance itself is shaky in their common cause of opposing and challenging China. It is recalled that when Canberra launched an initiative to pin the blame of COVID-19 onto China through an “independent investigation,” Washington just simply expressed verbal solidarity. Following Canberra’s audacious request, Australia is now experiencing real economic problems related to restrictions China currently imposes on Australian beef, wine, barley and other agricultural products.
Although the verbal solidarity comes as Australia is now facing real economic problems, it was said before the announcement of the AUKUS Alliance. That does not negate the fact though that the US has an extensive and continued track record of betraying allies, despite assurances given. The latest casualties of Washington’s backstabbing are Greece, Cyprus and Israel as the US only last month backed out of supporting the EastMed pipeline.
In this way, Vilnius has undoubtedly miscalculated. Lithuania, which has major economic and social issues, has decided it can sacrifice trade with China for the sake of its political relationship with Washington. This is in addition to Vilnius miscalculating European reactions to any of China’s retaliatory measures. The majority of Europe evidently is unwilling to sacrifice their economies for the sake of serving American interests, with cheerleading from the UK and Australia, like Vilnius has done.
Ridicule does not kill. It is ok for the US or the EU to sunction bat not China.
How cretinous can you get?
Chinese cities have little to no beautification and a long culture of artistic minimalism. Very ugly looking cities today and a lack of compassion for each other, animals and their surroundings.
Russia and China are apart of the New World Order, they are not really against the jew-controlled Western powers since both countries are under jewish control themselves.
Please watch, highly recommended:
‘Authoritative Quotes Confirming the Global Insurrectionist Movement’
4 parts: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdRyXxr5VZ2Cl2xudUCJaxA/videos
Interesting that Russia and China sends people to jail over “insensitivity, intolerance” and “hate speech”. They sound very sensitive indeed. Europe, Australia and North America suffer from an identical Communistic “sensitivity” cloaked as “good manners” to protect the supposedly “victimized” class of sub-humans calling themselves “minorities, lgbt, etc.”
For the idiots that know nothing about China (their art doesn’t match up to the Classical European style):
https://thuletide.wordpress.com/2021/10/13/worlds-fair-expositions-incredible-lost-architecture-of-the-19th-century-hd-photo-gallery/
https://worldtruthvideos.website/watch/china-039-s-solution-to-over-population-problems_FDn3GICNhQM7ThE.html
https://worldtruthvideos.website/watch/china-hate-compilation_8TwwGehGFLIYYUz.html
https://worldtruthvideos.website/watch/china-hate-compilation-graphic-and-disturbing-do-not-click-i-warned-you_oSMgerC4H64A1CA.html
How is this normal in any way? I suppose this site is flooded with chinks.
https://archive.fo/iLN6F
https://i.imgur.com/pTZhX4h.jpg
Whats your problem? Have some fun man.
Meant to say sanction.
A key aspect of the AUKUS alliance is the Australian (covert) pursuit of allied nuclear device delivery capabilities:
– “[Australian] Strategic analyst Hugh White has reignited a debate in media and security circles about building nuclear weapons…… His recently published book, How to Defend Australia, argues that nuclear weapons need to be considered….. He is outlining an entire agenda, including what would be needed to build nuclear weapons and the necessary delivery systems. He advocates creating a nuclear arsenal along the lines of Britain and France, based on submarine-launched missiles.” (Prominent Australian academic suggests building nuclear weapons, By Peter Symonds, 11 July 2019)
– Australia may need to consider nuclear weapons to counter China’s dominance, defence analyst says, By Andrew Greene, ABC, 02/07/2019
– “Lowy Institute analyst Peter Layton proposed in an article on January 17 that Australia consider “sharing nuclear weapons” rather than developing an independent arsenal. He suggested the placement of US nuclear weapons on Australian soil on the same basis as in Germany, Belgium, Holland, Italy and Turkey, or alternatively, cost-sharing with Britain to build its fleet of Dreadnought-class nuclear submarines, armed with Trident nuclear missiles.” (Renewed push for Australia to build nuclear weapons, By Peter Symonds, WSWS, 30 January 2018), etc…….
Reports indicate Australia has been negotiating to acquire either US Virginia-class of UK Astute-class nuclear attack submarines with plans to host allied (US and/or UK) nuclear submarines until its submarine fleet is operational.
Note: This would logically require Russia and China to adjust their contingency planning accordingly (with recognition Australia is already hosting US strategic aviation and plans to host broader allied military architecture including US carrier strike groups).
p2. – “Paul Dibb, the former head of two Australian spy organizations and a deputy defence minister, has just published [‘Why Russia is a threat to the international order’, Australian Strategic Policy Institute] a call for Australian troops to be ready to fight in Europe against [Russia]……. [There was a] leak last month of Australian cabinet plans for an Australian Army force to fight in eastern Ukraine, alongside Dutch and other NATO units….” (Australian Armchair General Weaponizes Himself in War Against Russia, John Helmer, 04/07/2016),
– “The report [‘Australia-Japan-US Maritime Cooperation’ by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies] contains specific recommendations….. The report’s author, Andrew Shearer, is a senior figure in the Australian foreign policy and military establishment…. Shearer is also very well connected in Washington…… Shearer makes clear [the] main “hard security” objective is to prepare for war with China….. The Pentagon’s preoccupation with “freedom of navigation” and China’s A2/AD [Anti-Access, Area Denial] systems flows directly from its military strategy for war with China—Air Sea Battle. This is premised on being able to launch massive missile and air attacks on the Chinese mainland from warships and submarines in nearby waters, as well as from military bases in Japan and South Korea. Australia and Japan are central to Air Sea Battle and associated strategies, which include a naval blockade of China to strangle its economy…… ” (CSIS report argues for strong US-Japan-Australia alliance against China, By Peter Symonds, 9 April 2016), etc……
In this context, it is worth noting the US-NATO-allied bloc build-up of military-missile architecture in Eastern Europe (for a ‘large-scale military conflict’ [as assessed by Russia]) and in the Asia-Pacific (involving the enhancement of US-led military cooperation initiatives/alliance structures such as AUKUS, QSD, RAA, CSPs, etc. [towards the creation of an ‘Asian NATO’]).
The Australians believe they are enhancing their power and security through the hosting of allied military forces (including nuclear-capable assets) with efforts to acquire the potential to employ allied nuclear devices. The reality is the opposite. Australia has become a legitimate target in warfare scenarios. Indeed, as broader unfolding events move gradually towards world war scenarios (the globally expanding militarism of the US-NATO-allied bloc having progressed to preparations for war against Russia, China, Iran, the DPRK, etc.), the Australians have ensured in the context of these developments, they are legitimate targets for retaliatory strikes.
As Australia is integrated in US-NATO-allied military architecture and US operational plans (for war scenarios against China and Russia, with the hybrid warfare domain being active), it would be prudent for Russia and China to correspondingly develop integrated operational plans (including the potential coordination of their strategic forces) for various war scenarios.
This is not right. All of these things are for amusement.
Russia, China, Iran and North Korea have divergent interests. Also, Australia has very little population comparing to China, India, Japan or Indonesia.