Thai gov. to tax (remitted) income from abroad for tax residents starting 2024 - Part II

[webfact]

NATO sees growing Russia, China challenge; higher risk of war

By Andrea Shalal

 

A child holds the national flags of Russia and China prior to a welcoming ceremony for Russian President Vladimir Putin outside the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, June 25, 2016. REUTERS/Kim Kyung-Hoon

 

BERLIN (Reuters) - China's growing military strength and a resurgent Russia will pose growing challenges to the trans-Atlantic alliance in coming years, and NATO's moves to bolster its capabilities could trigger a new Cold War-style arms race, a NATO report said.

 

The report, completed once every four years, identifies 20 global trends that are likely to affect the alliance through 2035, ranging from artificial intelligence and accelerating technology development to climate change and growing inequality.

 

General Denis Mercier, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, told Reuters the report showed a higher risk of major interstate war than in the 2013 report.

 

"We see a considerable increase in the risk of a major interstate conflict," Mercier said in an interview on the sidelines of the Berlin Security Conference.

 

His command will release a companion report that maps out what NATO should do to respond to these trends in the spring, with both documents to inform the 2019 NATO political guidance.

 

"Having a global awareness is more necessary than before. We have to be ready for any kind of scenario," Mercier said, noting that globalisation meant NATO had to weigh factors outside its region, including military expansion by China and India.

 

Easy access to technology and the global nature of cyberspace would make it easier for terrorist networks to expand, challenging the current near-monopoly that state actors have on high-tech weapons, the report said.

 

Environmental factors would also play a bigger role, from higher rates of natural disasters to the increased opening of the Arctic, the report said, as well as a growth in global debt and erosion of trust in financial institutions.

 

The report said defence spending had begun increasing after Russia's annexation of the Crimea region of Ukraine in 2014, and projections called for further increases through 2045.

 

But it warned that the increases "might create a security dilemma and start an arms race, as was the case during the Cold War".

 

It said competing budget priorities and fiscal constraints in member states could hamper their ability to meet NATO alliance requirement in the future.

 

Mercier said NATO was already working to expand its capabilities in the cyber domain, and to ensure cyber protections were baked into every weapons system and network from the outset.

 

"In NATO, we are under permanent attack in cyber," he said, noting that the alliance had proven "quite good" at protecting itself thus far, but needed to remain vigilant.

 

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Andrew Hay)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-11-29

[Samui Bodoh]

29 minutes ago, webfact said:

General Denis Mercier, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, told Reuters the report showed a higher risk of major interstate war than in the 2013 report.

 

"We see a considerable increase in the risk of a major interstate conflict," Mercier said in an interview on the sidelines of the Berlin Security Conference.

 

Sadly, there is a great deal of truth in this statement.

 

When one looks back over the last 2,000 years or so, the prevailing conditions have been either 'world' wars or 'large scale' wars, the operative word being 'wars'.

 

Despite the many, many conflicts (Korea, Vietnam, Iran/Iraq, Congo, India/Pakistan, Columbia, Cambodia,  etc., etc., etc.), the last 70 years or so have been remarkably peaceful, relatively speaking. We haven't really seen the true, overwhelming death and destruction that prevailed in World War Two for example, despite the many conflicts; It is a credit to the post WW2 international frameworks for peace and security.

 

Sadly, it seems like some of those post WW2 frameworks are weakening and/or breaking down, and the end result of that process isn't hard to figure out.

 

I truly hope that Man can come to his senses and not return to the times of massive death and destruction, but I have my doubts...

 

Cheers?

[craigt3365]

This doesn't help.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nato-russian-planes-intercepted-eu-europe-fighter-jets-scrambled-bombers-raf-typhoons-alaska-putin-a7696561.html

Nato intercepting highest number of Russian military planes since the Cold War as 780 incidents recorded in 2016

 

Figures revealed after Russian planes approach Alaskan coast four nights in a row

[Enoon]

3 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

Sadly, there is a great deal of truth in this statement.

 

When one looks back over the last 2,000 years or so, the prevailing conditions have been either 'world' wars or 'large scale' wars, the operative word being 'wars'.

 

Despite the many, many conflicts (Korea, Vietnam, Iran/Iraq, Congo, India/Pakistan, Columbia, Cambodia,  etc., etc., etc.), the last 70 years or so have been remarkably peaceful, relatively speaking. We haven't really seen the true, overwhelming death and destruction that prevailed in World War Two for example, despite the many conflicts; It is a credit to the post WW2 international frameworks for peace and security.

 

Sadly, it seems like some of those post WW2 frameworks are weakening and/or breaking down, and the end result of that process isn't hard to figure out.

 

I truly hope that Man can come to his senses and not return to the times of massive death and destruction, but I have my doubts...

 

Cheers?

 

Last 70 years have been pretty "normal" as far as mans ageless fondness for war goes.

 

ie. Much as it had been in the 1000's years preceding the late 1930's.

 

Ancient/Classical period ("Men grow tired of sleep, love, singing, and dancing sooner than war", Homer 9thc BC) not in these stats:

List of wars by death toll - Wikipedia

(Re Modern Wars with less than 2O,OOO deaths: Just as many "small" wars in the Ancient/Classical/Medieval/Rennaisance/Enlightenment eras.)

 

The Post-War WW2 "framework" was the Cold-War.  When that came to an end Chaos ensued.

 

Reagan and Thatcher liked to take the credit for that.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Enoon

[retarius]

It seems clear to me that we need a multi-polar world. The uni-polar world model with the US as hegemon has resulted in endless wars started by the US in overt or covert fashion and disturbing the stability of the Middle East and Europe, and now starting in Asia and Africa.

 

The US has lost all moral authority with the lies piled upon lies from the Pentagon; the sequential demonizing of individuals and countries via propaganda programs based on lies; the hypocrisy of claiming that they are supporting 'democracy' when patently they provide financial and military support in defiance of their own laws to over 70% of dictators around the globe. 

 

The non-stop meddling has to stop and the best way would be to have Russia, China and the US as joint powers each with their sphere of influence that the other keep out of. The world needs a counter to NATO with China and Russia teaming up with other smaller nations to recreate the balance that we had prior to 1990.

 

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, retarius said:

It seems clear to me that we need a multi-polar world. The uni-polar world model with the US as hegemon has resulted in endless wars started by the US in overt or covert fashion and disturbing the stability of the Middle East and Europe, and now starting in Asia and Africa.

 

The US has lost all moral authority with the lies piled upon lies from the Pentagon; the sequential demonizing of individuals and countries via propaganda programs based on lies; the hypocrisy of claiming that they are supporting 'democracy' when patently they provide financial and military support in defiance of their own laws to over 70% of dictators around the globe. 

 

The non-stop meddling has to stop and the best way would be to have Russia, China and the US as joint powers each with their sphere of influence that the other keep out of. The world needs a counter to NATO with China and Russia teaming up with other smaller nations to recreate the balance that we had prior to 1990.

 

 

 

Oh, you talk about propaganda...how interesting. The USA is vile, immoral, dishonest, hypocritical, yada yada yada. Even if it was as bad as claimed, doesn't make the two other runner ups any more righteous, though.What we need is three superpowers each involved in conflicts on its own respective "turf"? Really? How exactly would this  be an improvement? Not sure what kind of ideal balance you imagine existed prior to 1990. 

 

 

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

 

Sadly, there is a great deal of truth in this statement.

 

When one looks back over the last 2,000 years or so, the prevailing conditions have been either 'world' wars or 'large scale' wars, the operative word being 'wars'.

 

Despite the many, many conflicts (Korea, Vietnam, Iran/Iraq, Congo, India/Pakistan, Columbia, Cambodia,  etc., etc., etc.), the last 70 years or so have been remarkably peaceful, relatively speaking. We haven't really seen the true, overwhelming death and destruction that prevailed in World War Two for example, despite the many conflicts; It is a credit to the post WW2 international frameworks for peace and security.

 

Sadly, it seems like some of those post WW2 frameworks are weakening and/or breaking down, and the end result of that process isn't hard to figure out.

 

I truly hope that Man can come to his senses and not return to the times of massive death and destruction, but I have my doubts...

 

Cheers?

 

May have something to do with current generations of decision makers not having lived through WWII, or even it's direct aftermath. The frame of reference is different, some lessons not experienced first hand.

[helpisgood]

5 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

 

Figures revealed after Russian planes approach Alaskan coast four nights in a row

Thank God we have Sarah Palin keeping an eye on those Russians. 

 

Seriously, thanks for the interesting link!  I didn't realize how prevalent it had become. 

[Srikcir]

7 hours ago, webfact said:

NATO sees growing Russia, China challenge; higher risk of war

Unfortunately, it's no longer "NATO" but rather "NATO sine Trump." Trump mostly sees the world as business relationships and that leaves him complacent with the geopolitical challenges from Russia and China whose presidents Trump admires and honors.

[zig]

40 minutes ago, retarius said:

The non-stop meddling has to stop and the best way would be to have Russia, China and the US as joint powers each with their sphere of influence that the other keep out of. The world needs a counter to NATO with China and Russia teaming up with other smaller nations to recreate the balance that we had prior to 1990.

Most of the smaller nations around Russia would rather like to stay out of Russia's sphere of influence and are unlikely to willingly join such a team Russia. They joined NATO precisely for the reason to avoid being bullied by Russia.

[Dumbastheycome]

5 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Oh, you talk about propaganda...how interesting. The USA is vile, immoral, dishonest, hypocritical, yada yada yada. Even if it was as bad as claimed, doesn't make the two other runner ups any more righteous, though.What we need is three superpowers each involved in conflicts on its own respective "turf"? Really? How exactly would this  be an improvement? Not sure what kind of ideal balance you imagine existed prior to 1990. 

 

 

Perhaps  the  suggestion is   to  find a  way  out  of  the  confrontational  merry  go  round of  propagandist false  ideologies?

There  is   no  winner  in  " We   win  because  you all  died  before  us ".

 

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Perhaps  the  suggestion is   to  find a  way  out  of  the  confrontational  merry  go  round of  propagandist false  ideologies?

There  is   no  winner  in  " We   win  because  you all  died  before  us ".

 

 

There wasn't any such suggestion made in the post I was replying to.

[Dumbastheycome]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

There wasn't any such suggestion made in the post I was replying to.

No? lol

[craigt3365]

7 hours ago, retarius said:

It seems clear to me that we need a multi-polar world. The uni-polar world model with the US as hegemon has resulted in endless wars started by the US in overt or covert fashion and disturbing the stability of the Middle East and Europe, and now starting in Asia and Africa.

 

The US has lost all moral authority with the lies piled upon lies from the Pentagon; the sequential demonizing of individuals and countries via propaganda programs based on lies; the hypocrisy of claiming that they are supporting 'democracy' when patently they provide financial and military support in defiance of their own laws to over 70% of dictators around the globe. 

 

The non-stop meddling has to stop and the best way would be to have Russia, China and the US as joint powers each with their sphere of influence that the other keep out of. The world needs a counter to NATO with China and Russia teaming up with other smaller nations to recreate the balance that we had prior to 1990.

 

 

Right. Those in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, the Baltics, etc, might argue with you.

 

One sided posts as usual.

[boomerangutang]

Trump is a big factor in Nato's newfangled wariness towards China and Russia.

Here's why:  Trump has made no secret that he's bosom buddies with Putin who, in Trump's adoring eyes, can do no wrong.  While campaigning in 2016, Trump inferred NATO should be fazed out.  That's on the same page with Putin, and is music to Putin's ears.  Trump was reading, verbatum, from Sputnik (the Kremlin newspaper) ...to his adoring brain-addled fans.

As for China,  Trump sees it only through the lens of dollar signs. 

 

The US used to be a solid and strong member of Nato,  now the US prez has more important things to focus on, like personally dissing the father of a basketball player, promoting Ivanka's high heels, calling a Gold Star mom a liar, and sending the VP on an expensive jet with entourage, hundreds of miles, in order to walk in and walk out of a stadium.  Trump can't be bothered with silly things like NATO.  He's too busy eating ice cream and playing golf.

[Jsinbkk]

10 hours ago, Srikcir said:

Unfortunately, it's no longer "NATO" but rather "NATO sine Trump." Trump mostly sees the world as business relationships and that leaves him complacent with the geopolitical challenges from Russia and China whose presidents Trump admires and honors.

Trump is asking reasonable questions,"Why should the US defend a rich Europe against a poor Russia?"

 

why should they?

[nausea]

Total BS, nobody's gonna pick a war with Western Europe, we're the experts - WW1, WW2; we turn our peace economies into war economies, you better watch out baby.

[boomerangutang]

9 hours ago, Jsinbkk said:

Trump is asking reasonable questions,"Why should the US defend a rich Europe against a poor Russia?"  why should they?

Are you joking?  If so, not funny.  When hundreds of tanks (and/or thousands of missiles) roll out of Russia toward central Europe, we're not going to think about who's rich or who's poor.

 

Putin wants to recobble the USSR (but not using that name).  He's got a lovely ally in Trump.

[Jsinbkk]

14 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Are you joking?  If so, not funny.  When hundreds of tanks (and/or thousands of missiles) roll out of Russia toward central Europe, we're not going to think about who's rich or who's poor.

 

Putin wants to recobble the USSR (but not using that name).  He's got a lovely ally in Trump.

Not joking

 

why should US defend Germany?  They should do it themselves.