Asia on the Brink! And Does the New York Times Have a Stick of Dynamite for Xi Jinping?

This week on Newsbud’s China Watch with Peter Lee: Asia on the Brink!  Korea Votes and Kim Jong Un Collects Hostages.  Is Admiral Harris in China’s Sights?  And Does the New York Times Have a Stick of Dynamite Waiting for Xi Jinping?

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

***Support Newsbud on Kickstarter

Show Notes

China urged US to fire Pacific Command Chief Harris in return for pressure on North Korea

Admiral Harry Harris & Who’s Lying About that Aircraft Carrier?

Fu Zhenghua tape: Xi (Jinping) Investigates Wang (Qishan) in Chinese

What Lies Behind China’s HNA Group’s $40 Billion M&A Buying Spree?

Xi Jinping Millionaire Relations Reveal Fortunes of Elite

Bloomberg's Folly

A Chinese Mystery: Who Owns a Firm on a Global Shopping Spree?

Statement of Sasha Gong, Fred Wang, Huchen Zhang, and Robert Li

A Maze of Capital Leads to Anbang’s Aggressive Expansion

China’s ‘Most Dangerous Woman’ Knows Which Way the Wind Blows

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. Michael Naaden says:

    Seems like US and China have been poking each other a lot. Do you think that this is mostly an unavoidable by-product of Empire building, or is this an intentionally driven narrative to position (by either nation) to both their own public and the international public?

  2. John Nelson says:

    Hey, when does “Shame in San Francisco” get released to the Newsbud Community? I can’t seem to locate it.

  3. Peter Lee says:

    to Michael Naaden: IMO US foreign policy is justified and driven by the idea that non-alliance states that try to expand their influence are threatening the “international order” not just US interests, and containment and rollback are imperative. In US nomenclature China is a “revisionist power” because it is trying to expand its sphere of influence in places like South Korea, SE Asia, and the Philippines. I think the US decided that hegemony was good business and needed the cover of “defending the international order.” It’s a vital narrative because the US wouldn’t need a $500 billion/year military if its sole mission was defending the US homeland. Thousands of officers, think tankers, and defense contractors would be unemployed! Now it’s becoming much more difficult to sustain, especially in Asia and because China is quite careful and clever to focus on economic influence and shy away from military moves that could justify the US security-centric doctrine. Kind of hard to say “We need 20 new hunter-killer subs because China is strengthening economic ties to Kazakhstan”. But they’re doing their best. Scaling back the self-declared US global security mission would be a gigantic shift for the US and I don’t expect to see it happen.

Speak Your Mind