Thank you for your sophisticated and polite comment.

Publishing such a story and criticizing Canada for its defense spending while not even mentioning the wider threat landscape is disingenuous and fails to paint a realistic picture.

In 2025, the U.S. - again - spent the highest amount for defense.

Adjusted for purchasing power, China has the world’s second largest military budget. According to the World Bank, it spent 1.7% of its GDP for military in 2024 (compared to 1.3% in Canada). Beijing’s share of regional spending in the Indo-Pacific continues to increase as growth in Beijing’s military budget outpaces the wider region.

Although growth in Russia’s military expenditure moderated compared to previous years, it grew 3% in real terms in 2025, compared with 56.9% (!) in 2024. Nonetheless, expenditure still consumed over 7.3% of Russia’s GDP.

Peace is fine only if your adversaries pursue the same path. Unfortunately, this is not the case if we look at the world’s top-3 in military spending.

A year ago, during an election campaign in April 2025, Carney called China “Canada’s biggest security threat”. Now China is a “strategic partner”.

Canada called out China over forced labour practices (for which there is ample evidence), Now Carney says forced labour is a ‘global issue’ with parts of China are ‘at higher risk’. Carney and his finance minister Champagne recently avoided to address the fact that Chinese EV makers BYD has been found to use forced labour in its factories in Hungary and Brazil.

The Canadian military flew seven surveillance missions over waters near China in the past month to enforce North Korean sanctions, but the Department of National Defence is no longer confirming whether Chinese aircraft intercepted those flights, as it has in years past.

These are a few examples. It hurts Canada imho. It can soon hurt Canadians as soon as China attempts to take advantage over its new ‘partnerhips’ by coercing the Canadian government for political gains (there is ample evidence that Beijing has been doing so with other countries in the past).

You may find another term than bowing, but this is what it is imo. It’s certainly true that the US isn’t a reliable partner anymore, but this doesn’t make China better. It’s the dictatorship it has ever been, and as such it is even worse than the US.

@Binzy_Boi@piefed.ca

You may have noticed that the post were the same, and I don’t see a reason to make different comments to the same content.

If you’re going to make bullying your main reason on the platform, at least read others’ posts before commenting.

This article is ridiculously weird. The global conflict has already arrived. Russia has invaded Ukraine. China’s war games around Taiwan and the rest of the Indo-Pacific, the US/Israel war in Iran … It’s important that Canada invests in its own defense industry and those of its allies, as someone has already said, rather than in buying from the US or China. But Canada has no other choice than investing in its defense.

And this is why he is bowing to China? Are the China ties strength?

I get that the Emirates are upset because of Trump, and I am not a fan of the US dollar, but by announcing a potential switch to the Chinese yuan the UAE is threatening itself I would say.

I get that the Emirates are upset because of Trump, and I am not a fan of the US dollar, but by announcing a potential switch to the Chinese yuan the UAE is threatening itself I would say.

Ah, yes, you mean it’s better to pursue the so-called “reunification” - for which China will never renounce the right to use force, according to Xi Jinping - and the Chinese Communist Party’s “one country, two systems”? Where have I heard that before? What, you guys are gonna do another “Hong Kong”?

A year ago, during an election campaign in April 2025, Carney called China “Canada’s biggest security threat”. Now China is a “strategic partner”.

Canada called out China over forced labour practices (for which there is ample evidence), Now Carney says forced labour is a ‘global issue’ with parts of China are ‘at higher risk’. Carney and his finance minister Champagne recently avoided to address the fact that Chinese EV makers BYD has been found to use forced labour in its factories in Hungary and Brazil.

The Canadian military flew seven surveillance missions over waters near China in the past month to enforce North Korean sanctions, but the Department of National Defence is no longer confirming whether Chinese aircraft intercepted those flights, as it has in years past.

These are a few examples. It hurts Canada imho. It can soon hurt Canadians as soon as China attempts to take advantage over its new ‘partnerhips’ by coercing the Canadian government for political gains (there is ample evidence that Beijing has been doing so with other countries in the past).

[Edit typo.]

At least you know what to expect out of China.

Yeah, if we see this as some sort of satire. You know that China will break any prior agreement as soon as the government thinks it can take advantage over it. What you can expect is coercion at the cost of Canadians.

Having that said, this is not about the US and China. There are other allies for Canada that play by rules of law. You know what to expect from them, and its more and better for Canada than what you can expect from a government like China’s.

And this is why he is bowing to China? Are the China ties strength?

And this is why he is bowing to China? Are the China ties strength?

Some time ago a user posted also Fronius, an Austrian company. It’s difficutl, that’s true, but it’s worth the price I would say ;-)

… but the real number doesnt really matter. Its completely obvious …

Yeah, reality doesn’t matter. It’s obvious anyway. We should all become Chinese, right?

Thanks for this. (/s, just to be safe)

This is just another absurdly weird propaganda spread by Tiktok influencers.

Xi Jinping needs an annual GDP growth of 5% to meet China’s long-term goals. So China’s growth is always around 5%, at least according to official sources.

Economists even within China doubt that the official statistics in China are correct. In September 2024, Zhu Hengpeng - a leading economist who worked for the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) for more than 20 years, most recently as the Institute of Economics deputy director and director of the Public Policy Research Center - disappeared after criticizing China’s official statistics, claiming the official data is trying to gloss over the Chinese economy which is in a much worse state than the official numbers make people believe. (In the meantime Zhu works again for the Academy afaik, but he now believes the data - at least ‘officially’.)

Xi Jinping needs an annual GDP growth of 5% to meet China’s long-term goals. So China’s growth is always around 5%, at least according to official sources.

Economists even within China doubt that the official statistics in China are correct. In September 2024, Zhu Hengpeng - a leading economist who worked for the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) for more than 20 years, most recently as the Institute of Economics deputy director and director of the Public Policy Research Center - disappeared after criticizing China’s official statistics, claiming the official data is trying to gloss over the Chinese economy which is in a much worse state than the official numbers make people believe. (In the meantime Zhu works again for the Academy afaik, but he now believes the data - at least ‘officially’.)

if you think it applies to anything Twongo said.

Not anything, I cited one of her statements.

You, @technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com, have been frequently posting highly biased sources - including such outlets as the wsws. org, a propaganda medium that explicitly promotes and conveys Chinese Communist Party talking points. This site even spreads Beijing’s warmongering propaganda against Taiwan. The wsws is an openly dedicated pro-China mouthpiece.

It’s absurdly weird that you are accusing someone else of being a ‘propagandist’.

The sources and facts I post are highly reliable and independent, If you have doubts about that, feel free to address them specifically and provide a rationale for your accusations. This second-hand intimidation is usually what one would expect from ‘tankies’ as you may know.

[Edit typo.]