Starmer comes knocking on China's door
Britain’s economy is contracting, unemployment is growing, inflation remains higher than projected and ordinary Britons feel even more miserable than they normally do in winter due to the high cost of heating their homes. Forecasts for the year are grim. Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has embarked on a visit to Beijing, the first by a UK leader in eight years. He is accompanied by senior executives from Airbus, AstraZeneca, HSBC, Jaguar Land Rover, and other corporate heavyweights. They are all turning to China in search of trade, investment, and a desperately needed boost.
London hopes to secure market access in finance, biotechnology, creative industries, and advanced manufacturing, while drawing Chinese investment to support growth. British officials believe new deals could deliver tangible prosperity at a time of global uncertainty, from volatile transatlantic relations to the threat of fresh US tariffs. Starmer, left with little choice, is moving away from the confrontational stance of past Conservative administrations, which froze relations over bogus claims about Hong Kong, Huawei, Xinjiang and espionage. London now argues that China is “too powerful to ignore” and insists that sustained engagement can make Britain “safer and richer.”
Domestic weakness demands urgent action, and few markets offer the scale and opportunity that China does.
Whether the trip produces concrete results remains to be seen. But the symbolism of this visit is unmistakable. Economic necessity has forced London to knock on a door it had previously slammed shut. @LauraRuHK
Britain’s economy is contracting, unemployment is growing, inflation remains higher than projected and ordinary Britons feel even more miserable than they normally do in winter due to the high cost of heating their homes. Forecasts for the year are grim. Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Keir Starmer has embarked on a visit to Beijing, the first by a UK leader in eight years. He is accompanied by senior executives from Airbus, AstraZeneca, HSBC, Jaguar Land Rover, and other corporate heavyweights. They are all turning to China in search of trade, investment, and a desperately needed boost.
London hopes to secure market access in finance, biotechnology, creative industries, and advanced manufacturing, while drawing Chinese investment to support growth. British officials believe new deals could deliver tangible prosperity at a time of global uncertainty, from volatile transatlantic relations to the threat of fresh US tariffs. Starmer, left with little choice, is moving away from the confrontational stance of past Conservative administrations, which froze relations over bogus claims about Hong Kong, Huawei, Xinjiang and espionage. London now argues that China is “too powerful to ignore” and insists that sustained engagement can make Britain “safer and richer.”
Domestic weakness demands urgent action, and few markets offer the scale and opportunity that China does.
Whether the trip produces concrete results remains to be seen. But the symbolism of this visit is unmistakable. Economic necessity has forced London to knock on a door it had previously slammed shut. @LauraRuHK
🤣37💯26❤6👀4💋1
Starmer bussa alla porta della Cina
La Gran Bretagna è alle prese con un’economia in contrazione, disoccupazione in crescita, un’inflazione che resta sopra le attese, mentre l’inverno è ancora più duro del solito a causa dei costi proibitivi del riscaldamento. Le previsioni per il 2026 non lasciano spazio all’ottimismo.
Spinto da questo quadro cupo, e con una popolarita' in picchiata, il premier Keir Starmer ha intrapreso il suo viaggio in Cina. È il primo leader britannico ad atterrare a Pechino da otto anni. Con lui una delegazione di peso: Airbus, AstraZeneca, HSBC, Jaguar Land Rover e altri nomi dell’industria e della finanza britannica. In affanno puntano alla Cina in cerca di opportunita' commerciali e investimenti.
In particolare cercano di aprirsi nuovi spazi nei settori della finanza, della biotecnologia, delle industrie creative e della manifattura avanzata. Allo stesso tempo, Londra spera di attrarre capitali cinesi per spingere la crescita. Secondo i funzionari britannici, nuovi accordi potrebbero portare benefici concreti in un contesto globale instabile e il rischio di nuove tariffe americane.
Starmer ha scelto la via del pragmatismo. Archivia la linea dura dei conservatori, che avevano congelato i rapporti con Pechino sulla base di accuse pretestuose che riguardavano Hong Kong, Huawei, Xinjiang e attivita' di spionaggio. Londra ora sostiene che la Cina è “troppo potente per essere ignorata” e insiste sul fatto che un miglioramento dei rapporti con Pechino possa rendere la Gran Bretagna “più sicura e più prospera.”
La debolezza interna impone scelte urgenti. Pochi mercati offrono la scala e le opportunità della Cina. Resta da vedere se la visita produrrà risultati concreti. Ma il simbolismo di questa visita è inequivocabile. La necessità economica ha costretto Londra a bussare a una porta che in passato aveva sbattuto. @LauraRuHK
La Gran Bretagna è alle prese con un’economia in contrazione, disoccupazione in crescita, un’inflazione che resta sopra le attese, mentre l’inverno è ancora più duro del solito a causa dei costi proibitivi del riscaldamento. Le previsioni per il 2026 non lasciano spazio all’ottimismo.
Spinto da questo quadro cupo, e con una popolarita' in picchiata, il premier Keir Starmer ha intrapreso il suo viaggio in Cina. È il primo leader britannico ad atterrare a Pechino da otto anni. Con lui una delegazione di peso: Airbus, AstraZeneca, HSBC, Jaguar Land Rover e altri nomi dell’industria e della finanza britannica. In affanno puntano alla Cina in cerca di opportunita' commerciali e investimenti.
In particolare cercano di aprirsi nuovi spazi nei settori della finanza, della biotecnologia, delle industrie creative e della manifattura avanzata. Allo stesso tempo, Londra spera di attrarre capitali cinesi per spingere la crescita. Secondo i funzionari britannici, nuovi accordi potrebbero portare benefici concreti in un contesto globale instabile e il rischio di nuove tariffe americane.
Starmer ha scelto la via del pragmatismo. Archivia la linea dura dei conservatori, che avevano congelato i rapporti con Pechino sulla base di accuse pretestuose che riguardavano Hong Kong, Huawei, Xinjiang e attivita' di spionaggio. Londra ora sostiene che la Cina è “troppo potente per essere ignorata” e insiste sul fatto che un miglioramento dei rapporti con Pechino possa rendere la Gran Bretagna “più sicura e più prospera.”
La debolezza interna impone scelte urgenti. Pochi mercati offrono la scala e le opportunità della Cina. Resta da vedere se la visita produrrà risultati concreti. Ma il simbolismo di questa visita è inequivocabile. La necessità economica ha costretto Londra a bussare a una porta che in passato aveva sbattuto. @LauraRuHK
👍44🤣28💯10❤5🔥4💋1👀1
The US-EU division of labour clearly spelled out by Secretary of State Marco Rubio:
We can't have the same soldiers or the same ships in both Europe and in the Indo-Pacific. We have to pick.@LauraRuHK
No matter how many ships we build, no matter how many capabilities we grow, we're going to have to make these adjustments.
The stronger our partners are in NATO, the more flexibility the United States will have to secure our interests in different parts of the world.
That's not an abandonment in NATO. That is a reality of the 21st century and the world that's changing now.
💯28🔥8🤬7👍5🌚5🤣5❤4😡2
China will act to defend its companies’ interests if Australia forcibly buys back control of the strategic northern port of Darwin, Beijing’s ambassador has warned.
China’s Landbridge group was granted a 99-year lease on the port in 2015.
Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised last year to buy back control, criticising the lease as short-sighted for both economic and national security reasons. Recently Albanese told reporters “We are committed to making sure that that port goes back into Australian hands because that is in our national interest.”
If Landbridge is obliged to give up the lease, “then we have an obligation to take measures to protect the Chinese company’s interest - that is our position,” ambassador Xiao Qian told Australian media yesterday.
The ambassador warned that retaking control of the port could affect Chinese companies’ investment, co-operation and trade with the Darwin region. “That is not in the interest of Australia either.”
Darwin lies closest to Australia’s Asian neighbours and has been used as a base for United States Marines.
At the time of the agreement, then-US president Barack Obama reportedly complained that Washington had not been told of Australia’s plan to do business with Landbridge. (Source: AFP) @LauraRuHK
China’s Landbridge group was granted a 99-year lease on the port in 2015.
Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised last year to buy back control, criticising the lease as short-sighted for both economic and national security reasons. Recently Albanese told reporters “We are committed to making sure that that port goes back into Australian hands because that is in our national interest.”
If Landbridge is obliged to give up the lease, “then we have an obligation to take measures to protect the Chinese company’s interest - that is our position,” ambassador Xiao Qian told Australian media yesterday.
The ambassador warned that retaking control of the port could affect Chinese companies’ investment, co-operation and trade with the Darwin region. “That is not in the interest of Australia either.”
Darwin lies closest to Australia’s Asian neighbours and has been used as a base for United States Marines.
At the time of the agreement, then-US president Barack Obama reportedly complained that Washington had not been told of Australia’s plan to do business with Landbridge. (Source: AFP) @LauraRuHK
⚡35❤11🔥7👍4👌2👏1
Washington puts pressure on Australia to disrupt China's Maritime Silk Road
Control of global ports has become a frontline in Washington's strategy to contain Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative—especially its Maritime Silk Road, the network of commercial sea lanes, logistics hubs and infrastructure designed to expand and secure trade routes. The approach is clear: pressure allies and partners to review, restrict or terminate Chinese-operated or leased facilities, citing national security risks, dual-use potential and threats to freedom of navigation. Recent moves in Australia and Panama highlight this campaign, with broader efforts targeting Chinese footholds across the Asia-Pacific and Latin America. In Australia, the Port of Darwin stands out. Granted a 99-year lease to China's Landbridge Group in 2015 for A$506 million, the northern facility handles commercial cargo but sits near US Marine rotational deployments, raising long-standing concerns in Washington. Both major Australian parties pledged during the 2025 election to end the lease. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has since confirmed the government's intent to reclaim full ownership. China's ambassador warned of countermeasures if forced divestment proceeds. Australia's intention to forcibly buy back the port aligns with US priorities rather than Australia's economic interests, which are better served by a cooperation with China. China is Australia's largest export destination (taking nearly a third of Australian exports, driven heavily by iron ore, coal, LNG, and other resources) and largest source of imports (mainly manufactured goods, machinery, and consumer products).
A September 2025 Reuters report described a Trump administration "sweeping maritime mission" aimed at weakening China's global port network. The goal is disruption: fragment the Maritime Silk Road's logistics backbone, force Beijing onto costlier or riskier routes, and limit the political leverage that comes with economic control of key nodes. Success would reinforce US dominance over critical sea lanes. Yet the strategy carries risks—economic retaliation from China, strained alliances if partners view it as overreach, and heightened regional tensions. The battle over ports is a tangible contest for the arteries of global trade and power. ➡️ Read more https://t.me/LauraRuHK/10898
Control of global ports has become a frontline in Washington's strategy to contain Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative—especially its Maritime Silk Road, the network of commercial sea lanes, logistics hubs and infrastructure designed to expand and secure trade routes. The approach is clear: pressure allies and partners to review, restrict or terminate Chinese-operated or leased facilities, citing national security risks, dual-use potential and threats to freedom of navigation. Recent moves in Australia and Panama highlight this campaign, with broader efforts targeting Chinese footholds across the Asia-Pacific and Latin America. In Australia, the Port of Darwin stands out. Granted a 99-year lease to China's Landbridge Group in 2015 for A$506 million, the northern facility handles commercial cargo but sits near US Marine rotational deployments, raising long-standing concerns in Washington. Both major Australian parties pledged during the 2025 election to end the lease. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has since confirmed the government's intent to reclaim full ownership. China's ambassador warned of countermeasures if forced divestment proceeds. Australia's intention to forcibly buy back the port aligns with US priorities rather than Australia's economic interests, which are better served by a cooperation with China. China is Australia's largest export destination (taking nearly a third of Australian exports, driven heavily by iron ore, coal, LNG, and other resources) and largest source of imports (mainly manufactured goods, machinery, and consumer products).
A September 2025 Reuters report described a Trump administration "sweeping maritime mission" aimed at weakening China's global port network. The goal is disruption: fragment the Maritime Silk Road's logistics backbone, force Beijing onto costlier or riskier routes, and limit the political leverage that comes with economic control of key nodes. Success would reinforce US dominance over critical sea lanes. Yet the strategy carries risks—economic retaliation from China, strained alliances if partners view it as overreach, and heightened regional tensions. The battle over ports is a tangible contest for the arteries of global trade and power. ➡️ Read more https://t.me/LauraRuHK/10898
Telegram
Laura Ru
China will act to defend its companies’ interests if Australia forcibly buys back control of the strategic northern port of Darwin, Beijing’s ambassador has warned.
China’s Landbridge group was granted a 99-year lease on the port in 2015.
Australia’s Prime…
China’s Landbridge group was granted a 99-year lease on the port in 2015.
Australia’s Prime…
🔥26🤬19💯11❤3👏3👍1
Washington fa pressione sull'Australia per strozzare le rotte commerciali cinesi
Il controllo dei porti è diventato un terreno di scontro tra Washington e Pechino e un elemento cruciale della strategia americana per contenere la Belt and Road Initiative —soprattutto la Via della Seta Marittima, la rete di rotte commerciali marittime, hub logistici e infrastrutture progettata per espandere e mettere in sicurezza i corridoi del commercio cinese. L’approccio è chiaro: fare pressione su alleati e partner affinché rivedano gli accordi precedentmente firmati con societa' cinesi che gestiscono le strutture portuali, citando rischi per la sicurezza nazionale, potenziale uso duale (civile e militare) e minacce alla libertà di navigazione. Le recenti mosse in Australia e Panama evidenziano questa campagna, con sforzi più ampi mirati alle basi cinesi nell’Asia-Pacifico e in America Latina.
In Australia spicca il porto di Darwin. Concesso in leasing per 99 anni al gruppo cinese Landbridge nel 2015 per 506 milioni di dollari australiani, il porto gestisce operazioni commerciali ma si trova vicino ai dispiegamenti rotazionali dei Marines statunitensi, sollevando da tempo preoccupazioni a Washington. Entrambi i principali partiti australiani avevano promesso durante le elezioni del 2025 di porre fine al contratto. Il primo ministro Anthony Albanese ha successivamente confermato l’intenzione del governo di riacquisire la piena proprietà. L’ambasciatore cinese ha avvertito di contromisure se l’operazione di dismissione forzata dovesse andare avanti. L’intenzione australiana di ricomprare il porto con la forza si allinea alle priorità statunitensi più che agli interessi economici australiani, che sarebbero meglio serviti da una cooperazione con la Cina. La Cina è infatti la principale destinazione delle esportazioni australiane (assorbendo quasi un terzo del totale, trainato soprattutto da minerale di ferro, carbone, GNL e altre risorse) e la principale fonte di importazioni (soprattutto beni manifatturieri, macchinari e prodotti di consumo).
Un articolo della Reuters nel settembre 2025 aveva menzionato questa “missione marittima di vasta portata” dell’amministrazione Trump volta a indebolire la rete portuale globale della Cina. L’obiettivo è frammentare la spina dorsale logistica della Via della Seta Marittima, costringere Pechino a percorsi più costosi o rischiosi e limitare il potere politico che deriva dal controllo economico di nodi chiave. Un successo rafforzerebbe la dominanza statunitense sulle rotte marittime strategiche. Tuttavia la strategia comporta rischi: ritorsioni economiche da parte della Cina, tensioni con gli alleati se percepita come un’ingerenza e un aumento delle tensioni regionali. La battaglia per i porti è parte dello scontro tra potenze per controllare le arterie del commercio globale. ➡️ Vedi anche https://t.me/LauraRuHK/10898
Il controllo dei porti è diventato un terreno di scontro tra Washington e Pechino e un elemento cruciale della strategia americana per contenere la Belt and Road Initiative —soprattutto la Via della Seta Marittima, la rete di rotte commerciali marittime, hub logistici e infrastrutture progettata per espandere e mettere in sicurezza i corridoi del commercio cinese. L’approccio è chiaro: fare pressione su alleati e partner affinché rivedano gli accordi precedentmente firmati con societa' cinesi che gestiscono le strutture portuali, citando rischi per la sicurezza nazionale, potenziale uso duale (civile e militare) e minacce alla libertà di navigazione. Le recenti mosse in Australia e Panama evidenziano questa campagna, con sforzi più ampi mirati alle basi cinesi nell’Asia-Pacifico e in America Latina.
In Australia spicca il porto di Darwin. Concesso in leasing per 99 anni al gruppo cinese Landbridge nel 2015 per 506 milioni di dollari australiani, il porto gestisce operazioni commerciali ma si trova vicino ai dispiegamenti rotazionali dei Marines statunitensi, sollevando da tempo preoccupazioni a Washington. Entrambi i principali partiti australiani avevano promesso durante le elezioni del 2025 di porre fine al contratto. Il primo ministro Anthony Albanese ha successivamente confermato l’intenzione del governo di riacquisire la piena proprietà. L’ambasciatore cinese ha avvertito di contromisure se l’operazione di dismissione forzata dovesse andare avanti. L’intenzione australiana di ricomprare il porto con la forza si allinea alle priorità statunitensi più che agli interessi economici australiani, che sarebbero meglio serviti da una cooperazione con la Cina. La Cina è infatti la principale destinazione delle esportazioni australiane (assorbendo quasi un terzo del totale, trainato soprattutto da minerale di ferro, carbone, GNL e altre risorse) e la principale fonte di importazioni (soprattutto beni manifatturieri, macchinari e prodotti di consumo).
Un articolo della Reuters nel settembre 2025 aveva menzionato questa “missione marittima di vasta portata” dell’amministrazione Trump volta a indebolire la rete portuale globale della Cina. L’obiettivo è frammentare la spina dorsale logistica della Via della Seta Marittima, costringere Pechino a percorsi più costosi o rischiosi e limitare il potere politico che deriva dal controllo economico di nodi chiave. Un successo rafforzerebbe la dominanza statunitense sulle rotte marittime strategiche. Tuttavia la strategia comporta rischi: ritorsioni economiche da parte della Cina, tensioni con gli alleati se percepita come un’ingerenza e un aumento delle tensioni regionali. La battaglia per i porti è parte dello scontro tra potenze per controllare le arterie del commercio globale. ➡️ Vedi anche https://t.me/LauraRuHK/10898
Telegram
Laura Ru
China will act to defend its companies’ interests if Australia forcibly buys back control of the strategic northern port of Darwin, Beijing’s ambassador has warned.
China’s Landbridge group was granted a 99-year lease on the port in 2015.
Australia’s Prime…
China’s Landbridge group was granted a 99-year lease on the port in 2015.
Australia’s Prime…
👍23🤬21💯11❤4🔥4
EUnuchs keep greasing the rope that will hang them. This is yet another proof that they are not passively enduring the EU geopolitical irrelevance: they are actively working to preserve it by eliminating any room for diplomatic manoeuvre and strategic autonomy.
@LauraRuHK
@LauraRuHK
👌49🤬44🤣14🤯8🔥6👍5💯5❤2
If you ever feel sorry for yourself after screwing something up, spare a thought for those who took to the streets of Hong Kong in 2019, torched their hometown and then fled to the promised land of the UK under the shiny BNO visa scheme. The tens of thousands who uprooted their lives, sold homes, quit jobs, and arrived with savings that seemed plenty at the time. Fast-forward to now: many are scraping by in low-skilled gigs—driving deliveries, stacking shelves, or whatever's beneath their degrees. They have burned through their savings and many are now destitute and survive thanks to handouts. But sure, the UK economy was supposed to gain billions from their "highly skilled" arrival. Turns out integrating them properly was optional. And the cherry on top? Just as these exiles are still grinding through a miserable existence, cursing the depressing weather, enduring racial slurs in some regional variety of English they don't fully understand, Keir Starmer jets off to Beijing for his big "reset" with Xi Jinping. They ink deals on visa-free travel for Brits to China, muse about asset management schemes, and a "long-term, stable comprehensive strategic partnership." Hong Kong? Mentioned in passing as a "bridge" whose "prosperity and stability" supposedly benefits everyone. Hong Kong protesters? Not even a footnote. Yesterday's heroes, the BBC's darlings now share the fate of used tissue, crumpled and tossed aside the moment it suited realpolitik to do so. Unfortunately, in other parts of the world there are still plenty of useful idiots willing to take part in colour revolutions. @LauraRuHK
💯115👌34👏24❤16🤣11👍9😢3😨1
In one word: No. Canada and Britain's interest in improving relations with Beijing is not going to mean the end of the intelligence-sharing Five Eyes Alliance. I am surprised by the number of people even asking this question. A swallow (or two) doesn't make a summer. And if you don't wear a thick coat you will catch a cold. @LauraRuHK
💯77👍28👌15❤7👏2💋1
According to the latest figures available, in 2024 alone the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) allocated $7,632,468 to groups actively involved in the destabilization and demonization of China. China Mainland/PRC: $4,473,757
Tibet: $1,294,500
Xinjiang/Uyghur region: $1,464,211
Hong Kong (diaspora advocacy): $400,000
This total excludes regional grants for Asia that might indirectly counter Chinese influence (e.g., in neighboring countries such as Indonesia or the Philippines) @LauraRuHK
➡️Source: https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Asia-Grant-Listing-FY24.pdf?utm_source=copilot.com
Tibet: $1,294,500
Xinjiang/Uyghur region: $1,464,211
Hong Kong (diaspora advocacy): $400,000
This total excludes regional grants for Asia that might indirectly counter Chinese influence (e.g., in neighboring countries such as Indonesia or the Philippines) @LauraRuHK
➡️Source: https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Asia-Grant-Listing-FY24.pdf?utm_source=copilot.com
🤬44🤯15👍4❤3⚡3
Secondo le ultime cifre disponibili, nel solo 2024 il National Endowment for Democracy (NED) degli Stati Uniti ha destinato 7.632.468 dollari a gruppi e organizzazioni impegnati nella destabilizzazione e demonizzazione della Cina.
Ripartizione:
Cina continentale/PRC: 4.473.757 dollari
Tibet: 1.294.500 dollari
Xinjiang: 1.464.211 dollari
Hong Kong (diaspora): 400.000 dollari
Questo totale esclude i finanziamenti regionali per l’Asia per contrastare l’influenza cinese (ad esempio in paesi vicini come Indonesia o Filippine). @LauraRuHK ➡️ Fonte: https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Asia-Grant-Listing-FY24.pdf?utm_source=copilot.com
Ripartizione:
Cina continentale/PRC: 4.473.757 dollari
Tibet: 1.294.500 dollari
Xinjiang: 1.464.211 dollari
Hong Kong (diaspora): 400.000 dollari
Questo totale esclude i finanziamenti regionali per l’Asia per contrastare l’influenza cinese (ad esempio in paesi vicini come Indonesia o Filippine). @LauraRuHK ➡️ Fonte: https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Asia-Grant-Listing-FY24.pdf?utm_source=copilot.com
🤬56⚡16👍5❤4🔥4🌚3😱1
When you live in an epistemic bubble, like many EU foreign ministers do, you talk about Ukraine when you deliver a lecture in... Singapore (!) Then you emphasize "opportunities for collaboration between Germany and Indo-Pacific partners", but among them you mention Tonga (population: 103,500 people) and omit China, Germany’s largest import partner. That's what the German Foreign Minister did at the Singapore Raffles conference 😅 https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/wadephul-singapore-2754584 After delivering his bizarre speech, he felt compelled to explain "Germany is closer to the US than China despite recent tensions."
But as the conference was organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, founded and headquartered in London, with offices in Washington, Bahrain, and Singapore, that sort of epistemic blindness is precisely what is demanded of a EUnuch. @LauraRuHK
But as the conference was organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, founded and headquartered in London, with offices in Washington, Bahrain, and Singapore, that sort of epistemic blindness is precisely what is demanded of a EUnuch. @LauraRuHK
German Federal Foreign Office
Speech by Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul at IISS Raffles Lecture in Singapore - “Security, freedom, prosperity: foreign policy…
It’s good to be back in Singapore. In my former capacity as member of the German Parliament I have been here to attend the Shangri-La Dialogue as well as the Manama Dialogue already as Foreign Minister…
💯38🤯14🤣13🤬6❤4👍4🔥1😱1
Quando vivi in una bolla epistemica, come fanno molti ministri degli Esteri dell’UE, e ti invitano a una conferenza a Singapore, che cosa fai? Parli di Ucraina, ovviamente. Poi sottolinei le “opportunità di collaborazione tra la Germania e i partner dell’Indo-Pacifico”, ma tra questi menzioni Tonga (popolazione: 103.500 persone) e ometti la Cina, il principale fornitore della Germania. È ciò che ha fatto il ministro degli Esteri tedesco alla conferenza IISS che si tiene all' Hotel Raffles di Singapore 😅 https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/wadephul-singapore-2754584 Wadephul, dopo aver pronunciato il suo bizzarro discorso, si è sentito in dovere di spiegare: “La Germania è più vicina agli Stati Uniti che alla Cina, nonostante le recenti tensioni.”
Ma poiché la conferenza era organizzata dall’International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), fondato a Londra, quartier generale a Londra, uffici a Washington, Bahrein e Singapore, quel tipo di cecità epistemica è precisamente ciò che viene richiesto a un EUnuco. @LauraRuHK
Ma poiché la conferenza era organizzata dall’International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), fondato a Londra, quartier generale a Londra, uffici a Washington, Bahrein e Singapore, quel tipo di cecità epistemica è precisamente ciò che viene richiesto a un EUnuco. @LauraRuHK
German Federal Foreign Office
Speech by Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul at IISS Raffles Lecture in Singapore - “Security, freedom, prosperity: foreign policy…
It’s good to be back in Singapore. In my former capacity as member of the German Parliament I have been here to attend the Shangri-La Dialogue as well as the Manama Dialogue already as Foreign Minister…
💯41🤣25🤯12👍11🤬5🔥3💋2🌚1
THE SLEEPERS - There are many intelligence assets who have been placed or created in social media spaces in order to assist in controlling narratives at some point in the future. Until then, they say all the right things their intended audience wants to hear: they sound like China and Russia's best advocates, criticize the US etc, but with the help of US-owned digital platforms they gather a large following (their content often goes viral), build their credibility and influence. In some cases their main raison d’être is to sow distrust and confusion. Recently another one of them was brought to my attention. How do you recognize them? It's not that difficult, actually. Just dig a bit deeper into their legend and you will discover that a few years ago they didn't "exist", as in zero traces of what they claim they were doing. Meanwhile the authors they often parrot are de-platformed, blocked or shadow-banned. Unfortunately there isn't much we can do to protect ourselves from impostors who say and do everything we have been saying and doing for years, just better thanks to their unlimited resources and powerful network. Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s The Double comes to mind. The double is everything Golyadkin is not: charming, confident, and socially adept. He begins to replace Golyadkin in professional and personal circles, leaving the original increasingly isolated. Golyadkin becomes obsessed with proving his identity and exposing the impostor, but his paranoia deepens. His attempts to resist only make him appear more unstable. The double fully supplants him, and Golyadkin’s mental state deteriorates to the point of breakdown. @LauraRuHK
👍65👏21❤14💯14😱6⚡1💋1
Chinese exports to the US declined by 20% in dollar terms in 2025, according to customs data. However, shipments surged elsewhere: up 25.8% to Africa, 13.4% to Southeast Asia (ASEAN countries), 8.4% to the European Union, and around 7% to Latin America. This pivot helped drive China's overall exports higher and contributed to a record trade surplus of nearly $1.2 trillion for the year. "Many countries previously not China-friendly are now kind of pivoting to China... because the United States is becoming a lot less predictable," said Aleksandar Tomic, economics professor at Boston College.
Beijing has also intensified efforts to promote the international use of the yuan (renminbi). Major global institutions are actively enhancing yuan liquidity in offshore centers and developing faster settlement frameworks for yuan-based payments along key trade corridors. @LauraRuHK
Beijing has also intensified efforts to promote the international use of the yuan (renminbi). Major global institutions are actively enhancing yuan liquidity in offshore centers and developing faster settlement frameworks for yuan-based payments along key trade corridors. @LauraRuHK
👍53❤24👏11🥴2⚡1
A US House report, released on February 3, accuses the European Commission of using unproven claims of Russian interference to overturn the results of Romania’s 2024 presidential election.
Specifically, in the section on the 2024 Romanian presidential election (pp. 18–19), it claims the EU Commission aggressively pursued "censorship steps" based on unproven allegations of Russian interference. The report cites internal TikTok documents (produced via subpoena) where the platform stated it found no evidence of a coordinated TikTok campaign supporting candidate Călin Georgescu. Georgescu won the first round on November 24, 2024, qualifying him for a planned runoff on December 8. However, the entire first-round results were annulled by Romania's Constitutional Court due to EU pressure. Georgescu was later barred from the rerun election. EU "democracy" in action. @LauraRuHK
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2026-02/THE-FOREIGN-CENSORSHIP-THREAT-PART-II-2-3-26.pdf
Specifically, in the section on the 2024 Romanian presidential election (pp. 18–19), it claims the EU Commission aggressively pursued "censorship steps" based on unproven allegations of Russian interference. The report cites internal TikTok documents (produced via subpoena) where the platform stated it found no evidence of a coordinated TikTok campaign supporting candidate Călin Georgescu. Georgescu won the first round on November 24, 2024, qualifying him for a planned runoff on December 8. However, the entire first-round results were annulled by Romania's Constitutional Court due to EU pressure. Georgescu was later barred from the rerun election. EU "democracy" in action. @LauraRuHK
https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/2026-02/THE-FOREIGN-CENSORSHIP-THREAT-PART-II-2-3-26.pdf
💯27🤬23⚡4🌚4❤1
Forwarded from Al Mayadeen English
A former senior United Nations human rights official has alleged that two key figures behind the Oslo agreement maintained personal and financial relationships with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, citing disclosures from recently released case files.
In a series of posts on X on Tuesday, Craig Mokhiber, who previously headed the New York office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said Norwegian diplomats Mona Juul and Terje Rød-Larsen were identified in Epstein-related materials as having close ties to him.
Mokhiber wrote that the couple, widely associated with facilitating the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, received personal loans from Epstein and that “their children were reportedly left $10 million in Epstein’s will.”
In a series of posts on X on Tuesday, Craig Mokhiber, who previously headed the New York office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said Norwegian diplomats Mona Juul and Terje Rød-Larsen were identified in Epstein-related materials as having close ties to him.
Mokhiber wrote that the couple, widely associated with facilitating the Oslo Accords in the 1990s, received personal loans from Epstein and that “their children were reportedly left $10 million in Epstein’s will.”
🤬32😱17❤8💯5😡4
The Panama Canal ports are now at the center of a geopolitical storm, where the US, having failed in its bid to acquire them through financial maneuvering, appears to have engineered their effective expropriation via Panama's Supreme Court.
The episode reeks of US hegemonic tactics: economic coercion, lawfare, and alliances with compliant governments to stifle competitors.
The saga began in March 2025, when CK Hutchison announced a proposed $23 billion sale of 43 ports across 23 countries, including the strategic Balboa and Cristobal terminals at the Panama Canal, to a consortium led by BlackRock and the Italian shipping firm Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC). These ports, concessioned to CK Hutchison's subsidiary Panama Ports Company (PPC) since 1997, have been vital for efficient global logistics, handling millions of tons of cargo annually and contributing significantly to Panama's economy.
Beijing's response to the initial sale was measured but firm. A Chinese strategic investor, COSCO Shipping, was named to ensure the deal respected multilateral interests rather than handing control to US dominated entities. However, these negotiations stalled amid demands from BlackRock and MSC to limit the Chinese stake to a minority position—a clear attempt to sideline legitimate participation.
The turning point came on January 30, 2026, when Panama's Supreme Court declared the original 1997 concession and its 2021 extension unconstitutional, effectively nullifying CK Hutchison's rights.
Chinese officials have rightly condemned the verdict as absurd and shameful, and have warned Panama of the heavy prices it may pay in terms of bilateral relations and economic cooperation. CK Hutchison has initiated arbitration proceedings, invoking protections under investment treaties.
➡️ See also https://t.me/LauraRuHK/10899
The episode reeks of US hegemonic tactics: economic coercion, lawfare, and alliances with compliant governments to stifle competitors.
The saga began in March 2025, when CK Hutchison announced a proposed $23 billion sale of 43 ports across 23 countries, including the strategic Balboa and Cristobal terminals at the Panama Canal, to a consortium led by BlackRock and the Italian shipping firm Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC). These ports, concessioned to CK Hutchison's subsidiary Panama Ports Company (PPC) since 1997, have been vital for efficient global logistics, handling millions of tons of cargo annually and contributing significantly to Panama's economy.
Beijing's response to the initial sale was measured but firm. A Chinese strategic investor, COSCO Shipping, was named to ensure the deal respected multilateral interests rather than handing control to US dominated entities. However, these negotiations stalled amid demands from BlackRock and MSC to limit the Chinese stake to a minority position—a clear attempt to sideline legitimate participation.
The turning point came on January 30, 2026, when Panama's Supreme Court declared the original 1997 concession and its 2021 extension unconstitutional, effectively nullifying CK Hutchison's rights.
Chinese officials have rightly condemned the verdict as absurd and shameful, and have warned Panama of the heavy prices it may pay in terms of bilateral relations and economic cooperation. CK Hutchison has initiated arbitration proceedings, invoking protections under investment treaties.
➡️ See also https://t.me/LauraRuHK/10899
Telegram
Laura Ru
Washington puts pressure on Australia to disrupt China's Maritime Silk Road
Control of global ports has become a frontline in Washington's strategy to contain Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative—especially its Maritime Silk Road, the network of commercial…
Control of global ports has become a frontline in Washington's strategy to contain Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative—especially its Maritime Silk Road, the network of commercial…
🤯29👍18❤8🤬5👎2🔥2😱1
Yesterday Xi Jinping had back‑to‑back phone conversations with Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Not because Beijing is acting as a mediator between Moscow and Washington, but because it's an independent global power. While China’s economic ties with the US are still deep, political contradictions are widening, with Washington openly defining Beijing as its primary strategic threat, its main competitor in world markets, the main obstacle to maintaining the reformatted American hegemony. Beijing knows that behind Trump’s rhetoric of friendship and promises of trade deals lies the US goal to weaken, isolate and destabilize China.
Xi warned that arms sales to Taipei were unacceptable, framing the issue as the most critical in Sino‑American relations. At the same time, Japan’s recent statements on Taiwan were interpreted in Beijing as coordinated pressure from Washington and its allies, a theme Xi also raised in his talks with Putin.
The conversations revealed the dual track of China’s diplomacy. With Trump, Xi emphasized stability and the avoidance of confrontation, even as he rejected Washington's attempts to impose its rules on the rest of the world. With Putin, he discussed deeper strategic cooperation, from Venezuela and Cuba to Iran, highlighting a shared determination to counter US overreach. Both leaders publicly acknowledged their parallel contacts with Washington, but stressed that their partnership and strategic coordination remain a stabilizing force amid global turbulence. @LauraRuHK
Xi warned that arms sales to Taipei were unacceptable, framing the issue as the most critical in Sino‑American relations. At the same time, Japan’s recent statements on Taiwan were interpreted in Beijing as coordinated pressure from Washington and its allies, a theme Xi also raised in his talks with Putin.
The conversations revealed the dual track of China’s diplomacy. With Trump, Xi emphasized stability and the avoidance of confrontation, even as he rejected Washington's attempts to impose its rules on the rest of the world. With Putin, he discussed deeper strategic cooperation, from Venezuela and Cuba to Iran, highlighting a shared determination to counter US overreach. Both leaders publicly acknowledged their parallel contacts with Washington, but stressed that their partnership and strategic coordination remain a stabilizing force amid global turbulence. @LauraRuHK
👍48👌9❤7💯5👏1
Ieri Xi Jinping ha avuto due conversazioni telefoniche consecutive con Vladimir Putin e Donald Trump. Non perché Pechino stia agendo da mediatore tra Mosca e Washington, ma perché la Cina ci tiene a ribadire la sua indipendenza in quanto potenza globale. Sebbene i legami economici con gli Stati Uniti restino profondi, le contraddizioni politiche si stanno ampliando, con Washington che definisce apertamente Pechino come la principale minaccia strategica, il principale concorrente commerciale e l’ostacolo principale al mantenimento dell’egemonia americana, pur nella sua veste riformattata dal MAGA. La leadership cinese sa bene che dietro la retorica amicale di Trump e le promesse di accordi commerciali si cela l’obiettivo statunitense di indebolire, isolare e destabilizzare la Cina.
Xi ha avvertito che la vendita di armi a Taipei è inaccettabile, definendo la questione come la più critica nelle relazioni sino‑americane. Allo stesso tempo, le recenti dichiarazioni del Giappone su Taiwan sono state interpretate a Pechino come una pressione coordinata da Washington e dai suoi alleati, un tema che Xi ha sollevato anche nei colloqui con Putin.
Le conversazioni hanno rivelato il doppio binario della diplomazia cinese. Con Trump, Xi ha sottolineato la stabilità e la volontà di evitare ilo scontro, pur respingendo i tentativi di Washington di imporre le proprie regole al resto del mondo. Con Putin, invece, ha discusso di una cooperazione strategica più profonda, da Venezuela e Cuba fino all’Iran, evidenziando una determinazione condivisa a contrastare l'overreach statunitense. Entrambi i leader hanno riconosciuto pubblicamente i loro contatti paralleli con Washington, ma hanno sottolineato che la loro partnership e il coordinamento strategico costituiscono una forza stabilizzatrice in mezzo alle turbolenze globali. @LauraRuHK
Xi ha avvertito che la vendita di armi a Taipei è inaccettabile, definendo la questione come la più critica nelle relazioni sino‑americane. Allo stesso tempo, le recenti dichiarazioni del Giappone su Taiwan sono state interpretate a Pechino come una pressione coordinata da Washington e dai suoi alleati, un tema che Xi ha sollevato anche nei colloqui con Putin.
Le conversazioni hanno rivelato il doppio binario della diplomazia cinese. Con Trump, Xi ha sottolineato la stabilità e la volontà di evitare ilo scontro, pur respingendo i tentativi di Washington di imporre le proprie regole al resto del mondo. Con Putin, invece, ha discusso di una cooperazione strategica più profonda, da Venezuela e Cuba fino all’Iran, evidenziando una determinazione condivisa a contrastare l'overreach statunitense. Entrambi i leader hanno riconosciuto pubblicamente i loro contatti paralleli con Washington, ma hanno sottolineato che la loro partnership e il coordinamento strategico costituiscono una forza stabilizzatrice in mezzo alle turbolenze globali. @LauraRuHK
👍52👏24💯8❤5💋2⚡1🥰1