China’s Belt and Road Initiative is neo-colonialism 101: bait nations with loans, then tighten the noose when they can’t pay up. That’s not defense; that’s exploitation.
I see, so not only do you never provide evidence for your claims, you also never read evidence provided to you.
So, you’ve pulled out the Atlantic article like it’s some kind of trump card, but let’s break this down. First, the claim that China isn’t engaging in “debt-trap diplomacy” because intent can’t be proven is laughable. Intent is irrelevant when the outcomes are clear: nations drowning in debt, ceding control of strategic assets, and becoming beholden to Beijing. You think Sri Lanka handing over Hambantota Port for 99 years was just a coincidence? Spare me.
Second, your argument hinges on cherry-picked sources that downplay the predatory nature of China’s loans. Even if we humor your narrative that China’s lending is “mismanaged” rather than malicious, that’s hardly a defense. Poor risk management doesn’t absolve China of exploiting weak governance in developing nations to secure influence.
Finally, you conveniently ignore the broader pattern: opaque contracts, inflated project costs, and loans tied to Chinese contractors and workers. This isn’t altruism; it’s economic imperialism with a red flag instead of a corporate logo. Stop parroting state-approved propaganda and face reality—China’s BRI is empire-building, no matter how you spin it.
You have provided no evidence to support your arguments, you’re just saying them, as usual.
This isn’t altruism
No one is saying that any of it is altruism. But just because it’s not altuism doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s exploitation. There is a third option.
And I’m not passing whatever that is through a translator.
Ah, the “third option” cop-out—where exploitation gets rebranded as benevolence. You’re right, it’s not altruism; it’s calculated self-interest dressed up in flowery rhetoric. Call it what you want, but when nations lose sovereignty over ports, railways, and resources, it’s not a partnership—it’s a leash.
And if you don’t recognize the last paragraph, just show it to your handler. They’ll know what it means.
I see, so not only do you never provide evidence for your claims, you also never read evidence provided to you.
So, you’ve pulled out the Atlantic article like it’s some kind of trump card, but let’s break this down. First, the claim that China isn’t engaging in “debt-trap diplomacy” because intent can’t be proven is laughable. Intent is irrelevant when the outcomes are clear: nations drowning in debt, ceding control of strategic assets, and becoming beholden to Beijing. You think Sri Lanka handing over Hambantota Port for 99 years was just a coincidence? Spare me.
Second, your argument hinges on cherry-picked sources that downplay the predatory nature of China’s loans. Even if we humor your narrative that China’s lending is “mismanaged” rather than malicious, that’s hardly a defense. Poor risk management doesn’t absolve China of exploiting weak governance in developing nations to secure influence.
Finally, you conveniently ignore the broader pattern: opaque contracts, inflated project costs, and loans tied to Chinese contractors and workers. This isn’t altruism; it’s economic imperialism with a red flag instead of a corporate logo. Stop parroting state-approved propaganda and face reality—China’s BRI is empire-building, no matter how you spin it.
河蟹又来?
You have provided no evidence to support your arguments, you’re just saying them, as usual.
No one is saying that any of it is altruism. But just because it’s not altuism doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s exploitation. There is a third option.
And I’m not passing whatever that is through a translator.
Ah, the “third option” cop-out—where exploitation gets rebranded as benevolence. You’re right, it’s not altruism; it’s calculated self-interest dressed up in flowery rhetoric. Call it what you want, but when nations lose sovereignty over ports, railways, and resources, it’s not a partnership—it’s a leash.
And if you don’t recognize the last paragraph, just show it to your handler. They’ll know what it means.
Again, no evidence. Just assertions that I guess you’re accustomed to people simply accepting as received wisdom.
Show this to your handler in Langley: Pound sand.