Thailand's pivotal role

[tamada]

Take some time to read this, it's quite lengthy. For me, it places the trivialities of who becomes the next prime minister, their political parties and even national elections in a better perspective.

https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/tha ... east-asia/

[Laan Yaa Mo]

Take some time to read this, it's quite lengthy. For me, it places the trivialities of who becomes the next prime minister, their political parties and even national elections in a better perspective.

https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/tha ... east-asia/

Without reading the article, it is pretty obvious who is going to win and why. As in Myanmar, elections in Thailand are just popularity contests. Political power resides with the military, the Senate, the rich and so on, no.

[Laan Yaa Mo]

I should have read the article. This competition between the United States and China for influence in Southeast Asia has been going on for a number of decades now but has only intensified for the last decade or so since the U.S. seemed to turn over responsibility in the region to China. The current U.S. President has renewed the interest of his country in Southeast Asia again. China has supported Cambodia, for the most part, in that country's disputes with neighbouring Vietnam and China at least since Mao ousted the Kuomintang.

[tamada]

Take some time to read this, it's quite lengthy. For me, it places the trivialities of who becomes the next prime minister, their political parties and even national elections in a better perspective.

https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/tha ... east-asia/

Without reading the article, it is pretty obvious who is going to win and why. As in Myanmar, elections in Thailand are just popularity contests. Political power resides with the military, the Senate, the rich and so on, no.

Elections in Myanmar?

[Kenr6583]

I believe the current U.S. administration's motives in S.E. Asia are strictly transactional, like pressuring them to purchase military equipment and other goods or face higher tariffs. And by using the current administration's influence to bypass red tape in Vietnam in order for Trump Org. to be able to invest $1.5 billion to build a few golf courses and condos. The only interest the U.S. has in S.E. Asia is to try and hurt China, but they aren't going to go out of their way to try and improve conditions there.

[FrazeeDK]

and in the big aircraft sale, the runup between the Saab Gripen and the F-16V who won? So, not particularly transactional. In order to buy influence you must have deep pockets. It seems that the Chinese are the ones that are willing to open their wallets for more regional influence.

[Kenr6583]

and in the big aircraft sale, the runup between the Saab Gripen and the F-16V who won? So, not particularly transactional. In order to buy influence you must have deep pockets. It seems that the Chinese are the ones that are willing to open their wallets for more regional influence.

Which is the point I was trying to make, and I think I did make. The only interest the U.S. has in this region is get them to purchase U.S. goods. They were even pushing Thailand earlier this year to take out loans, specifically through American banks, in order to purchase F-16's. Thailand rejected the loan conditions because they were too restrictive. The U.S. offers military financing, but with strings attached. So yes, the U.S. interest in S.E. Asia is purely transactional.

[FrazeeDK]

but, in the contest between the Swede Gripen and the US F-16 who won? What restrictions do the Swedes place on exported military gear? Who fronted the money for the Gripen purchase?

[tamada]

but, in the contest between the Swede Gripen and the US F-16 who won? What restrictions do the Swedes place on exported military gear? Who fronted the money for the Gripen purchase?

"Sweden restricts military exports through strict licensing by the {ISP} (Inspectorate for Strategic Products), requiring defense/security justifications while balancing international obligations, human rights (especially women's rights via feminist foreign policy), and preventing misuse in conflict zones, guided by laws like the Military Equipment Act. Key restrictions involve needing permits, preventing arms to unstable regions, and assessing impact on human rights, often leading to denials if criteria aren't met."

"The money for Thailand's recent Gripen purchase was fronted by the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF), using funds approved as part of Thailand's national defense budget. The procurement is a government-to-government (G2G) agreement between the Thai government and the Swedish government, with the contract specifically signed by the RTAF Commander-in-Chief."

[pipoz4444]

I believe the current U.S. administration's motives in S.E. Asia are strictly transactional, like pressuring them to purchase military equipment and other goods or face higher tariffs. And by using the current administration's influence to bypass red tape in Vietnam in order for Trump Org. to be able to invest $1.5 billion to build a few golf courses and condos. The only interest the U.S. has in S.E. Asia is to try and hurt China, but they aren't going to go out of their way to try and improve conditions there.

Maybe a bit off post, but

Shades of a proxy commercial war and is it not just restricted to Asia, China and the US

One only has to look at Europe and the UK how they align with certain countries in the regions purely for their respective commercial gain and some assemblage of importance in the region. Leaders of Countries who are continuously trying to make a name for themselves and so demonstrate that they still have some importance on the world stage, when in reality, they now have little, if not none, in most matters of importance.

Countries such as France, Australia and the UK. All Piss and Wind There 3 leaders swagger around the Globe like prima donnas, and most other Countries / Leaders don't give a Flying F..k about what they say. Macron, Albanese & Starmer

The Charts below may give some indication of where the real Global Economic Power and Trade is these days. Whilst the Economies of France and UK may have grown in size once the past 25 Years, it has taken all of those 25 Years. And Australia, are just not there.

Germany and India on the other hand have raced ahead. The question is, how can some countries achieve rapid growth in their Economies and why do other Countries fail or stagnate. over the same period of time

As countries diversify their respective economies and at the same time find / buy their import needs from lesser known counties, Trade ceases to be of economic significance or weapon. More choices and less bullet in the Trade gun.

[tamada]

So the top three really took off after covid. And Russia has improved since it invaded Ukraine and despite being sanctioned.

Amazing.

[Doodoo]

"Maybe a bit off post"

Thanks for the highlite of noting that being "Off post " And you are correct in being "way off post " as it doesnt mention "Thailand's pivotal role " once
Germany, India, Vietnam, Australia, France, UK, which has led us into Russia Ukraine, but not once Thailand

Amazing

[Kenr6583]

but, in the contest between the Swede Gripen and the US F-16 who won? What restrictions do the Swedes place on exported military gear? Who fronted the money for the Gripen purchase?

To respond to your first question as to who won, it appears Thailand won. They purchased a product under conditions they could agree with. Tam answered your next two questions, but I still have to ask, what difference does it make? They rejected one counties proposal and accepted another countries proposal. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

[pipoz4444]

"Maybe a bit off post"

Thanks for the highlite of noting that being "Off post " And you are correct in being "way off post " as it doesnt mention "Thailand's pivotal role " once
Germany, India, Vietnam, Australia, France, UK, which has led us into Russia Ukraine, but not once Thailand

Amazing

Not all posts need to make a direct text reference to proceeding posts. Mine was to acknowledge and agree with Kens post buy suggesting a form of "proxy commercial trade war" between USA and China in the Asia region. Nor Mr. D did I mention either Russia or Ukraine, as you did.

By the way the original post was related to geopolitical issues between China and the USA and the military & economic influences of China and US in the region.

With respect, you should spend more time reading people posts rather than just looking for a way to criticize or being pedantic.

Better still try posting something that is informative and useful, rather than just plugging Links from such an informative source as Facebook

[Doodoo]

You are the one that said
"Maybe a bit off post, but"

Not me
And if you read as you say I dont many of my posts they are not from Facebook. I wont list them as I know you are apparently reading all of my Posts

[tamada]

Lovely start to a harmonious, friendly and mutually respectful year on UM forum, eh?

Thanks for trying out. Can you put your handbags away now?