Sinovi kineskog zmaja

[palikaris]

sve sto radi amurika^tm je legalno, sta je tu nejasno

[assignment]

5 minutes ago, palikaris said:

sve sto radi amurika^tm je legalno, sta je tu nejasno

 

Ako je to ovde na forumu utvrdjena cinjenica na kojoj baziraraju nase diskusije bilo koje teme (dal je Sirija, Rusija, Kina, Iran ili bilo koji internacionalni konflikt) onda.... OK, works for me  

[Anduril]

1 hour ago, assignment said:

 

Sta je bre tu legalno? Po kojem zakonu, molim te objasni ako mozes. Ja nisam pravnik, ali po kom medjunarodnom ili ljudskom pravu/zakonu je ovo hapsenje stranog drzavljanina u stranoj drzavi na osnovu tvojih sankija prema Iranu legalno?

Jedino zakon "jaceg"?

 

Ovaj, umesto ovog gore mogao si i na netu da se informises o cemu se radi. Strani drzavljanin je predstavnik firme koja posluje u Americi - firma uradi nesto nelegalno - Amerika ima sporazum sa Kanadom o izrucenju optuzenih za nelegalne radnje u Americi - voila. Problem ovde je sto takvi sporazumi nisu pravljeni zapravo za jednostrane sankcije nego za nedela koja su obicno univerzalno kaznjiva. 

[Pečorin]

Poenta je da su ovde Kanađani ispali pizde.

[borris_]

Da nisu ispali, amerikanci bi ih kaznili vec nekako. Anduril je u zadnjoj recinici napisao u cemu je ovdje problem i nakraju to ispada kao zakon jaceg.

 

Francuska banka BNP je popila kaznu od nekoliko milijardi dolara jer je trgovala u dolarima sa Iranom prije nekoliko godina i platili su. Pouceni sa tim iskustvom, sve fr firme su se povukle iz Irana poslije ovih sankcija iako EU nije uvela nikakve sankcije. 

[assignment]

8 minutes ago, Anduril said:

 

Ovaj, umesto ovog gore mogao si i na netu da se informises o cemu se radi. Strani drzavljanin je predstavnik firme koja posluje u Americi - firma uradi nesto nelegalno - Amerika ima sporazum sa Kanadom o izrucenju optuzenih za nelegalne radnje u Americi - voila. Problem ovde je sto takvi sporazumi nisu pravljeni zapravo za jednostrane sankcije nego za nedela koja su obicno univerzalno kaznjiva. 

 

Lol, od tebe i onog Eraserhead-a sam naucio da kada se informisem po netu, uvek naletim na fake news i zauzmem pogresni stav... 

 

To sto "njena" firma posluje u Americi ne daje pravo da hapse zenu, neka izbace Huwaei iz Amerike, to bih pre razumeo...

 

Ali je ipak zakon jaceg...

 

@ Boris, EU je sada valjda stvorila neki fond da bi koliko toliko odrzala neki biznis sa Iranom i plati odstetu firmama koje USA kaznjavaju sto ne slede njihove sankcije...  Kao sto rece, zakon jaceg...

[Redoran]

Stvarno bi nam trebao pravnik ali mislim da po američkim zakonima, američko pravosuđe ima pravo da goni strane državljane koji krše^tm američke ukaze i zakone usmerene prema drugim zemljama, kao i da traži njihovo izručenje od drugih zemalja. Mislim da se ne zahteva čak ni da osumnjičeni živi i radi na teritoriji SAD.

 

Problem ovde nije toliko do SAD, oni su teroristi pa su teroristi. Problem je u tome što onaj deo sveta koji sebe voli da naziva demokratskim, naprednim i civilizovanim, umesto da u ime te iste demokratije i civilizacije odbije svaku vrstu saradnje sa SAD u terorisanju i maltretiranju drugih država, naroda i pojedinaca, svesno i voljno pomaže SAD da što bolje i efikasnije sprovode taj teror.

 

Uzgred, 90ih je u Nemačkoj i Holandiji bilo slučajeva hapšenja srpskih državljana zbog kršenja embarga protiv SRJ (ljudi pronalazili zaobilazne šeme da malinu i drugo voće iz Srbije doteraju u Nemačku) ali ti ljudi su imali prebivalište u Nemačkoj/Holandiji i bili su direktno dostupni njihovim organima gonjenja. Da ne pominjem da je narečeni embargo bio izglasan u UN i nije bilo u pitanju nečije unilateralno budalisanje.

[Shan Jan]

Tj. osnovni problem je u Kanadi u ovom slucaju. 

 

Ipak, ovo je malo drugacije od slucajeva kada se neko trazi jer je ubio/opljackao banku u odredjenoj zemlji. Ovo je cista politika, sukob izmedju dve zemlje (USA i Iran), gde ova druga je punopravna clanica medjunarodne zajednice. Bilo bi too much da su je i u USA uhapsili zbog toga. Kanadjani su totalni debili sto su ovo uradili, ali dobro, mozda je i bolje ovako, da se skinu rukavice i da se zna kakva pravila vaze za koga.

 

Podseti me na jedan drugi malo poznat incident, kada je Bocvana pre par godina isto tako osudila Kinu zbog intervencija na ostrvima u juznokineskom moru i istovremeno podrzali Dalaj Lamu i veca prava za tibetance. Mislim, wtf momenat, sta Bocanu bole qrac sta se desava u juznokineskom moru. Kinezi su povukli ambasadora, jedno vreme prestali da izdaju vize za bocvance itd. Vremenom se ispeglalo.

 

Kad si necija kolonija moras se tako i ponasati, jbg braco kanadjani  

[Lord Protector]

Stvar ima mnogo ozbiljniju pozadinu, bitku oko 5g mreže i IoT...

 

Hapšenje predsednice Huaweia je samo epizoda u nastupajućem tehnološkom ratu između Kine i Amerike:

 

Quote

 

Pentagon fears losing race for 5G to China

BY REBECCA KHEEL AND ELLEN MITCHELL - 25.09.2018

 

The next generation of wireless internet could be a boon for the U.S. military, but also comes with national security concerns about China’s role in the market.

Industry leaders have promised 5G, or fifth generation, wireless networks will bring lightning-fast speeds to support futuristic new technologies.

For the military, that could mean better communications and support for tactical operations around the world.

“With 5G, DOD [Department of Defense] will benefit of course from the larger range of spectrum available to 5G, the increased number of frequencies,” said retired Rear Adm. David Simpson, former chief of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau.

“You’re not only going to be able to get more data through and be able to have more people in a unit access an image or a video of something or maybe rehearse an operation, you’re going to be able to also move around in those frequencies and be less detectable.”

For the Pentagon that means the U.S is in a race with China for dominance in 5G, with the foreign power appearing to be ahead. Experts warn that could pose national security risks here as China increases its wireless market share globally and as other companies rely on Chinese products to build out networks.

A spokesperson from the Pentagon declined to comment for this article, saying that they can’t speak to 5G and security on the national level.

But the Trump administration singled 5G out as a priority in its National Security Strategy.

The strategy, released in late 2017, names “deploying a secure 5G Internet capability nationwide” as one of the infrastructure improvements that will “increase national competitiveness, benefit the environment and improve our quality of life.”

In January, Axios published a leaked document showing the National Security Council considered a proposal to pay for and build a national 5G network, citing threats from China.

“China has achieved a dominant position in the manufacture and operation of network infrastructure,” the document said. It also warned that “China is the dominant malicious actor in the Information Domain.”

The document landed with a thud on Capitol Hill and at the FCC, and there is little sign the administration plans to move forward with a nationalized 5G network. But its existence underscored the administration’s view of 5G as a national security issue.

“This comes up repeatedly in the U.S. because people are worried about relying on Chinese technology and they probably should be. It’s clear we have a competitor in this national security space, of a kind we’ve never had before in China,” said Jim Lewis, a technology and intelligence expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“The Chinese are pretty frank about how they want to dominate 5G.”

National security concerns reared their head again when Trump intervened in March to stop Broadcom’s attempted hostile takeover of the San Diego–based chipmaker Qualcomm. Again, Trump cited concerns about China.

While Broadcom was based in Singapore at the time, the administration argued the takeover could allow China to further overtake the United States by hindering Qualcomm’s investments in developing 5G technology.

Paul Triolo, who specializes in global technology policy at the Eurasia Group, said there are two main concerns about 5G and national security.

Of the four main companies that supply equipment that will be necessary to build 5G infrastructure, two are Chinese: ZTE and Huawei.

The first concern is that having that equipment in U.S. devices could facilitate Chinese espionage, he said. The second, he said, is that China may be able to shut off U.S. networks in the event of a conflict.

Triolo described both concerns as “valid but tricky.”

“These companies are just selling the equipment,” he said. “The operators actually operate the equipment. Depending on how the contract is structured, the equipment suppliers might have no access to the equipment or might only be updating software.”

The Pentagon, he added, is also worried that if China “wins” the 5G race, its model will become dominant around the world. In that case, he said, the Pentagon will be need to worry about Chinese equipment in devices everywhere it operates.

“Something like the Defense Department this concerns because they operate globally,” Triolo said. “There is a sort of broad concern that anywhere that DOD is operating and the underlying is sort of built with Chinese equipment, that’s a bad thing. But again, that security issue depends on all these other factors I mentioned, which is who is running the network, who’s operating the network and how much access they have.”

Triolo dismissed another concern, that China has an undue influence over the global organizations that develop telecommunications standards.

But Simpson, previously vice director of the Defense Information Systems Agency, expressed concern that “China has shrewdly advanced their standing with the rest of the telecommunications technical governance world” while U.S. influence is waning.

Despite the worries about China, Simpson said 5G presents many exciting opportunities for the Pentagon. Much like the promise of 5G for telemedicine, Simpson said the military could use the technology to remotely operate in dangerous environments.

But, he cautioned, the Pentagon needs to conduct a risk analysis.

“DOD will really want to look at its plans going forward and determine, is it OK to have foreign elements within the supply chain for radios that take them into combat, and if it’s not, then they should be working to introduce some domestic sources for that supply chain,” Simpson said.

Other moves in the administration on being more competitive on 5G have largely circled around “trying to stop something,” according to Lewis, a former Commerce Department official specializing in high-tech issues involving China.

“Where we haven’t done anything is thinking about, what are the policies we need to accelerate innovation and 5G in the U.S.?”

Lewis said the Pentagon should focus on building a strong base to support the development of innovative technologies.

“We don’t know what the Pentagon will be able to do with 5G. But having the ability to turn to an industry that is strong and well-positioned to come up with new technologies, that’s really the core of national security now,” he said.

“It’s the core of security, it’s the core of competitiveness.”

 

dokumenta koja su procurela u januaru:

 

https://www.axios.com/trump-team-debates-nationalizing-5g-network-f1e92a49-60f2-4e3e-acd4-f3eb03d910ff.html

 

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by slow

[Lord Protector]

Ako Kinezi pobede u globalnoj 5G utakmici, a to prevashodno znači kineska telekomunikaciona oprema sa kineskim softverom i jačim kriptografskim protokolima NSA može da okači špijunske kopačke o klin. Amerikanci će hapsiti i sankcionisati redom da ne dođe do toga.

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by slow

[pasha]

Kinezi uhapsili nekog kanadskog diplomatu i zapretili Kanadi sa teskim posledicama.

Kanadski sud pustio CFO Huawei uz kauciju da bude van zatvora.

 

Evo jos jedne zanimljive price o tehnoloskoj trci izmedju Kine i Amerike.

 

Quote

What is really at the basis of the ongoing conflict between the US and China, a feud which many say has gradually devolved into a new cold war if few top politicians are willing to call it for what it is, are China’s ambitions to be a leader in next-generation technology, such as artificial intelligence, which rest on whether or not it can design and manufacture cutting-edge chips, and is why Xi has pledged at least $150 billion to build up the sector.

But, as the FT notes, China’s plan has alarmed the US, and chips, or semiconductors, have become the central battlefield in the trade war between the two countries. And it is a battle in which China has a very visible Achilles heel.

Even with the so-called truce between the two sides signed last weekend, and which promptly unraveled after the Huawei CFO's arrest was unveiled last week, Washington plans to ramp up export controls next year on so-called foundational technologies — those that can enable development in a broad range of sectors — and the equipment for manufacturing chips is one of the key target areas under discussion.

This is a concern for China as the $412 billion global semiconductor industry rests on the shoulders of just six equipment companies, with three of them based in the US. Together, these companies make nearly all of the crucial hardware and software tools needed to manufacture chips, meaning an American export ban would choke off China’s access to the basic tools needed to make their latest chip designs.

"You cannot build a semiconductor facility without using the big major equipment companies, none of which are Chinese,” said Brett Simpson, the founder of Arete Research, an equity research group. "If you fight a war with no guns you’re going to lose. And they don’t have the guns."

To observe China's reliance on foreign products, look no further than the over $300 billion in semiconductor equipment China has imported over just the past 12 months.

To be sure, under Beijing’s auspices, Chinese chip companies have made enormous gains in semiconductor design as well as chip testing and packaging, in an attempt to catch up to the US. Several private and state-owned Chinese companies — Intel-backed Tsinghua Unigroup, Cambricon Technologies and Huawei’s HiSilicon among them — have already begun to venture into designing the leading edge chips capable of AI applications.

But, as the FT, notes, the real difficulty is not in designing the chips, but in making them: "From a design perspective, Chinese companies are at least on par with anyone else in the world,” said Risto Puhakka, president of VSLI Research. “Where they have a challenge is if they decide to make a very cutting-edge chip."

The country's recent scramble, amid the push for China 2025 strategic plan, to become technologically self-sufficient in chip production is clearly visible in the next chart, showing the big spike in recent imports of equipment for semiconductor manufacturing.

Still, as Chinese semiconductor plants try to catch up, they have few choices when outfitting or upgrading their chip foundries. The reason: only a few equipment suppliers remain after a decade of consolidation. 

Foremost among them is the Netherland’s ASML, which makes the photolithography machines that print and etch designs on to silicon wafers. It is the only supplier of the extreme ultra violet (EUV) lithography machines needed to make a 7-nanometre processor, the industry’s current gold standard.

Over in the US, Lam Research and Applied Materials as well as Japanese company Tokyo Electron dominate the market for equipment that can deposit billions of transistors and other active components on to a single chip. Another US company, KLA Tencor, sells much of the technology used in testing and monitoring the quality of chip production.

It is China’s reliance on these companies, more than any down swing in the stock market, that has made it vulnerable.

“Firms like Applied Materials, Lam Research and KLA-Tencor made 10 to 20 per cent of their revenues in China in 2017, a share which is expected to rise in 2018,” said Dan Wang, an analyst at Beijing research group Gavekal Dragonomics. “China is a large and growing market for them, and these companies don’t want export controls that are too restrictive.”

What would happen if the trade war escalates to prevent China from catching up with the US technologically?

Under current laws, an export ban on semiconductor equipment would mean both foreign companies, such as Samsung and Intel with foundries located in China, as well as wholly owned Chinese foundries would be unable to buy American equipment, though foreign companies are likely to be able to apply for waivers.

“One of the ideas of export controls is to prevent the release of the tech to certain foreign nationals from China: as an example, that could mean to a Chinese national wherever they are located, or to anyone within the physical geographic region of China,” said Anthony Capobianco, a partner at Hogan Lovells in Washington DC.

A US ban would also impact non-American chip equipment suppliers, because of the integration of what is a highly specialised supply chain: “ASML cannot do without Applied Materials and the other way around. If you take even one out of the value chain, that may hamper Chinese fabs,” said a former ASML executive.

Puhakka of VSLI Research said: “[These equipment suppliers] have the research and development, the trade secrets in metallurgy, the recipes: all of that knowledge base is 40 years old.” said VSLI Research’s Mr Puhakka.

"This is not about money. This about the knowledge base . . . and that knowledge base is not moving" he added, delineating China's core dilemma.

Still, slowly China is catching up and some mainland companies are starting to produce their own chip-making equipment. At the head of the pack are Shanghai-based AMEC, which makes both wafer fabrication and packaging equipment for 28nm chips, Shanghai Micro Electronics Equipment, which is creating chip-etching lithography machines, and CETC, the state defence company, which announced a 28nm ion implanting device this August.

But what matters in the global technological arms race is that no Chinese company is close to being able to offer equipment that can produce the current target size of 7nm chips. SMEE’s machines can only match what ASML was able to do about 15 years ago. Today’s most basic smartphones require chips that are between 14nm and 16nm in size, but the smallest chips offered by China’s biggest manufacturer, SMIC, is 28nm.

And if the US cuts them off from purchasing foreign equipment, Chinese plants will also miss out on accumulating operational experience. “Basically, it’s a double whammy,” said Mr Simpson from Arete Research.

“You’ve got two big bottlenecks. You need to get the equipment into your fabs [plants] and secondly, you’ve got to know how it runs and the intellectual property process to make use of that equipment,” he explained.

Of course, being behind doesn't mean China would give up, and if faced with US export controls, Chinese-owned plants could simply continue producing lower-end semiconductors, such as analogue chips, used in everything from industrial robots to electric vehicles.

However, out of reach in the medium term would be making the most advanced chips able to support AI functions or 5G telecommunication networks. Leading edge chips are also where sales and margins are highest. TSMC expects revenue from sales of advanced chips 28nm and smaller to rise to as much as 70% by this year, up from 42% only four years ago.

The risk is that an overly aggressive posture would backfire, and force China to become entirely self sufficient, because in the long term, analysts said, a US export ban would likely cement Beijing’s resolve to cultivate a wholly home grown semiconductor industry along every step, from design to fabrication to packaging.

“In the short term, US export controls can seriously set back Chinese progress on semiconductors. In the longer term, it’s hard to say if China will be permanently set back,” said Gavekal’s Wang, noting that fear of US export controls helped marshal the resources that shaped Japan’s most dominant semiconductor equipment players.

“The more tightly the US controls these goods, the more important it becomes for China to make these goods itself.”

 

 

[pasha]

A susitnski se sve vrtio oko ovoga

 

 

 

 

 

[Lord Protector]

Quote

 

Bolton slams China, Russia over 'predatory practices' in Africa
By Zachary Cohen and Michelle Kosinski, CNN

 

Washington (CNN)

National security adviser John Bolton unveiled President Donald Trump's Africa strategy on Thursday, outlining a plan that he said focuses heavily on countering China and Russia's expanding influence across the region, while also making sure US taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly with a reduction in US involvement in United Nations peacekeeping missions.

Bolton emphasized that America's vision for the region is "one of independence, self-reliance, and growth -- not dependency, domination, and debt."
However, the plan is also likely to result in additional cuts to aid and peacekeeping programs.
"This strategy is the result of an intensive interagency process, and reflects the core tenets of President Trump's foreign policy doctrine. Importantly, the strategy remains true to his central campaign promise to put the interests of the American people first, both at home and abroad," Bolton told the audience at the Heritage Foundation on Thursday.
"Under our new approach, every decision we make, every policy we pursue, and every dollar of aid we spend will further US priorities in the region," he said.

Specifically, the Trump administration's approach appears to lean heavily on the promise that the US will be able to advance trade and commercial ties with nations across the region by exposing the "predatory practices pursued by Russia and China."

"Great power competitors, namely China and Russia, are rapidly expanding their financial and political influence across Africa. They are deliberately and aggressively targeting their investments in the region to gain a competitive advantage over the United States," Bolton said.

By focusing economic efforts "on African governments that act with us as strategic partners, and, which are striving toward improved governance and transparent business practices," Bolton said the US will help prepare those nations address security threats, including terrorism and militant violence."

"Our goal is for the nations of the region to take ownership over peace and security in their own neighborhood," he added.
CNN reported last month that the Pentagon has already approved a long-awaited plan to reduce the number of US troops conducting counterterrorism missions in Africa over the next three years, despite senior US military commanders warning last year that the terror threat in many African nations was growing, particularly in West Africa.
The planned reductions are part of a broader global effort intended to help better align the US military's global posture with the Trump administration's new National Defense Strategy, which focuses more on "near-peer" competitors like Russia and China as opposed to counterterrorism missions.
A senior defense official said that the US would be "changing, and yes, reducing some of our efforts" and said "by recouping some of this investment, it allows us to train, experiment and plan for the near peer competitors."
The administration's economic push in Africa is also intended to challenge inroads that have allowed China and Russian to exert a growing amount of influence on the continent.
China has a strong foothold in Africa, though, with massive infrastructure spending and development. While it will be difficult for the US to confront Beijing's influence in the region, distrust of China's lending policies is growing and Bolton said the administration intends to capitalize on that discontent.
In October, the New York Times reported that "episodes involving discriminatory behavior by the region's growing Chinese work force have unsettled many Kenyans, particularly at a time when their government seeks closer ties with China."

For it's part, Russia "is also seeking to increase its influence in the region through corrupt economic dealings," according to Bolton, who said Moscow "advances its political and economic relationships with little regard for the rule of law or accountable and transparent governance."
"In short, the predatory practices pursued by China and Russia stunt economic growth in Africa; threaten the financial independence of African nations; inhibit opportunities for US investment; interfere with US military operations; and pose a significant threat to US national security interests," Bolton said.
One problem is that the US is not clearly seen as the better option for African nations with Trump at the helm.
The Trump administration has cut aid to Africa for vital health programs that have real impact on lives and no one forgets the January Oval Office meeting where the President decried immigrants from the continent as coming from "shithole" countries, comments that prompted a rare public a rebuke from several African leaders.
Trump also waited more than a year to meet an African leader, though Bolton alluded to a potential upcoming presidential trip to the continent.
Still, Bolton claimed that the Trump administration is prioritizing Africa in a way previous administration's failed to do, emphasizing the long-term goal of helping nations in the region become self-sufficient.

But at the same time, the Trump administration has already cut several programs intended to foster long-term development from the ground up, a move that has raised questions about the US commitment to working with nations in the region in a mutually beneficial way.
One such program is the State Department's Young African Leaders Initiative, a group of young people who have been chosen from pool of applicants in the tens of thousands, to come study in the US because they are actively making their communities better in some way at home.
Under the Trump administration, YALI programs have been cut by one-third, meaning hundreds fewer students from throughout sub-Saharan Africa are able to come to the US, according to Neil Piper, executive director of The Presidential Precinct, which hosts the Mandela Washington Fellowship.
"This program is reaching people throughout Africa, in places where no one else is going. There is a lot of bipartisan support for it," he told CNN. "Now this is 250 fewer young leaders per year -- who are actually making positive changes in their home communities -- who won't have this kind of support and exposure to the United States. It's a big missed opportunity."
"In Africa, it's clear that China is making investments on the ground. Looking for opportunities to make real connections will be key. Otherwise, we're going to be left behind by other countries willing to do this," he added.
But Bolton argued that the US has spent billions of taxpayer dollars on aid to Africa and little has changed.
"They have not stopped the scourge of terrorism, radicalism, and violence. They have not prevented other powers, such as China and Russia, from taking advantage of African states to increase their own power and influence," he said.
"Our new foreign assistance strategy would ensure that all US foreign aid, in every corner of the globe, advances US interests," Bolton added. "From now on, the United States will not tolerate this longstanding pattern of aid without effect, assistance without accountability, and relief without reform."
Bolton's approach was also criticized by humanitarian groups.
"While we commend the recognition of African countries as important trade and security partners, the strategy falls short in providing a coherent approach to preventing violent conflict and terrorism across the continent," Richmond Blake, Director of Policy and Advocacy for Mercy Corps said.
Blake also observed that "a commitment to advancing human rights and democracy" was absent from the strategy.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2018 by slow

[porucnik vasic]

11 hours ago, pasha said:

A susitnski se sve vrtio oko ovoga

 

 

 

 

 

Сигурно.

[Venom]

On 12.12.2018. at 12:28, slow said:

Ako Kinezi pobede u globalnoj 5G utakmici, a to prevashodno znači kineska telekomunikaciona oprema sa kineskim softverom i jačim kriptografskim protokolima NSA može da okači špijunske kopačke o klin. Amerikanci će hapsiti i sankcionisati redom da ne dođe do toga.

 

 

Jacim kriptografskim protokolima 😁. Kinezi ce da izmisle sopstvenu enkripciju jer je tajnost protokola kljuc sigurnosti 😁.