Drone warfare will be put to the test in a civil conflict

In the future, drone warfare will be put to the test in a civil conflict.

Asymmetric Advantage: Drones, particularly commercially available and easily weaponized ones, provide a significant asymmetric advantage to non-state actors or rebel groups in a civil conflict. They are relatively cheap compared to traditional military hardware, can be acquired on the open market, and offer access to airpower that was once exclusive to state militaries.

Vulnerability of Formations: Traditional riot police tactics rely heavily on numerical superiority, formation, and close-quarters engagement. Drones, especially those capable of carrying payloads (e.g., tear gas, non-lethal projectiles, or even small explosives), can bypass these formations entirely. They can strike from above, disrupt lines, create chaos, and target individuals or critical equipment without putting human operators at direct risk.

Surveillance and Intelligence: Even without lethal capabilities, drones equipped with high-resolution cameras, thermal imaging, and AI-powered analytics can provide real-time intelligence on protestor movements, identifying leaders, tracking individuals, and predicting routes. This enhanced situational awareness for those controlling the drones could severely undermine the effectiveness of traditional riot control.

Psychological Impact: The constant overhead presence of drones, especially if perceived as armed or capable of dropping payloads, can have a significant psychological impact on crowds, leading to fear, dispersal, or increased aggression.

Swarming Technology: The development of drone swarms, where multiple drones act autonomously or semi-autonomously as a coordinated unit, presents an even greater threat. A swarm could overwhelm defenses, execute complex maneuvers, and deliver widespread effects, making traditional riot control formations even more obsolete.

Lessons from Current Conflicts: The ongoing war in Ukraine has dramatically showcased the transformative impact of drones on modern warfare. Both state and non-state actors are innovating rapidly in drone usage for reconnaissance, precision strikes, and even psychological operations. This demonstrates the speed at which drone capabilities are evolving and being adapted to various conflict scenarios, including those with elements of urban warfare and civil unrest.

Difficult to Counter: Countering large numbers of small, agile drones in an urban environment is a significant challenge for existing law enforcement capabilities. Traditional anti-air systems are often too expensive or designed for larger, faster targets. Developing effective and proportionate counter-drone measures for riot control is an area of active research and development.

However, it’s also important to consider some nuances and potential counter-developments:

Legal and Ethical Constraints: The use of armed drones, particularly against a civilian population, would raise immense legal and ethical questions and likely face international condemnation. This could act as a deterrent for governments.

Technological Countermeasures: Governments and law enforcement agencies are investing in counter-drone technologies, including jammers, net guns, and even anti-drone drones. The effectiveness of these measures against large-scale, low-cost drone attacks in a civil unrest scenario remains to be fully seen.

Public Perception and Backlash: Excessive or lethal drone use against protestors could further escalate civil unrest and erode public trust, potentially exacerbating the conflict.

Sophistication of Riot Police: While formations might be vulnerable, riot police could adapt tactics to mitigate drone threats, such as operating under cover, using smoke, or deploying their own counter-drones.

In conclusion, the assertion about the future impact of drone warfare on civil conflicts and riot police is highly credible. The proliferation and increasing sophistication of drone technology suggest that traditional crowd control methods will need to undergo significant adaptation to remain effective in the face of this emerging threat. The ethical and legal implications of such a shift will undoubtedly be a major area of debate and policy development. https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/1057022529721091/?__cft__[0]=AZU70r9NN-mt9HGANCP3vFhqtM0YtmJ1kau8EVtPOt-gOv_RFw1JZxCJF7NcDF1v5vEUzMi0VokNUkt9I3Uj4We0sCdSN4yrPuwUBbo8zdVwI_vf-X1efeNyl0Q80BL43qx2wF8nMb6KOfjkMOuIBPV3vUooYXwNE870w0SjX68Nsw&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Panama strike

A significant strike has paralyzed Panama, initiated by banana plantation workers protesting a new social security law that they claim will negatively impact their pensions. This has led to 5,000 workers being fired by the Chiquita Banana Company, a major employer in Bocas del Toro, which has indefinitely closed its doors due to the strike costing them $75 million.

In response, the government has declared a state of emergency in Bocas del Toro to support the affected population, attributing the crisis to an “illegal strike.”

The strike has expanded beyond banana workers to include hospital workers, teachers, and construction workers across Panama. These groups assert they were not consulted on the pension reform plan and believe it will devastate current and future generations. They are committed to continuing the strike indefinitely.

The government defends the reforms, stating the old pension system was insolvent and the new law will ensure better long-term pensions, suggesting a “lack of understanding” of the law among the public and an openness to dialogue for modifications.

The ongoing strike has paralyzed construction and incurred an estimated $90 million loss for Panama, with no resolution in sight. https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/599823053138646/?__cft__[0]=AZXhCws_0A81v0kYsBc3fLY6zR-NHQ9FNstJd2XJbzqm17ck2li_Rw7AS4JyhObKUYf5X8PBBj_TvEyaOHFJH-T4Dlq8qtV2XwmWnhNRsL6tOmBdLiMslNoH4pVsTze1V1UNezv_0cCKjTbZEcHe5jPHxxvz_BdnCUFl2Dy2OjhZhg&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Belt and Road Initiative

It was the spring of 2013, and the world was still finding its footing after the global financial crisis. In the grand halls of Beijing, a new leader, Xi Jinping, was settling into his role as China’s President. His vision was bold, ambitious, and, as we would later see, world-changing.

Across the Pacific, in Washington D.C., the seasoned diplomat John Kerry, then the U.S. Secretary of State, embarked on a crucial trip to China. The air between the two great powers was a mix of cooperation and cautious competition. During their meeting, President Xi, with a glint of what might have been genuine partnership in his eye, laid out a nascent idea to Secretary Kerry: a grand initiative to connect the world through infrastructure, trade, and investment. He called it, in those early days, something akin to a “new Silk Road,” and importantly, he suggested that China and the United States should build it together.

Kerry, a man known for his forward-thinking approach, was intrigued. The scale of the proposal, the potential for global cooperation, and the promise of shared prosperity resonated with his diplomatic instincts. He saw a glimmer of a historic opportunity, a chance for the two largest economies to collaborate on a venture that could benefit billions.

However, the wheels of government often turn slowly, and sometimes, with a heavy hand. As Kerry’s delegation prepared to leave Beijing, the proposal landed on the desk of a senior official in the U.S. Treasury Department – a “mandarin,” as Kerry would later recall, perhaps referencing the perceived bureaucratic stiffness. This official, acting within the prevailing strategic framework of the Obama administration, saw not opportunity, but risk.

The Obama White House, while seeking cooperation with China on certain issues, was deeply invested in its “Pivot to Asia,” a strategy designed to reassert American leadership and influence in the Indo-Pacific. This pivot was manifested in initiatives like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), an ambitious trade agreement aimed at knitting together economies around U.S.-led standards, often seen as a counterweight to China’s rising economic might.

From the Treasury Department’s perspective, the proposed “new Silk Road” carried significant concerns:

Competition, not collaboration: It was viewed as a potential rival to U.S.-led global institutions and economic frameworks, rather than a complementary effort.

Transparency and governance: There were nascent worries about the transparency of Chinese financing and the potential for debt traps in developing nations – concerns that would only grow louder in the years to come.

Strategic implications: The initiative was seen through the lens of strategic competition, a potential vehicle for China to expand its geopolitical influence and undermine U.S. interests.

And so, before John Kerry’s plane even touched down back on American soil, the nascent idea of a U.S.-China joint “Belt and Road” was “nixed.”

Xi Jinping officially launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in September 2013, a few months after his meeting with Kerry. It grew into a colossal undertaking, reshaping landscapes and economies across Asia, Africa, Europe, and beyond. It brought both development and debt, opportunities and challenges.

John Kerry would later reflect on that moment with a pang of regret, calling it “the single biggest missed opportunity of my life.” He saw what might have been: a world where the two great powers could have channeled their immense resources and ingenuity into a truly collaborative global development project, shaping its principles and ensuring its benefits were broadly shared.

The Tale’s Lessons:

The Weight of Missed Opportunity: Sometimes, the greatest regrets are not about what we did, but what we failed to do, the doors we chose not to open. Visionary ideas, especially in international relations, can be fragile and time-sensitive.

The Power of Perspective: What one person sees as a grand opportunity for collaboration, another, from a different vantage point, might perceive as a strategic threat or an unacceptable risk. National interests, pre-existing strategies, and deeply ingrained suspicions can overshadow potential partnerships.

The Bureaucratic Filter: Even the most senior leaders’ instincts can be overridden by the layered decision-making processes of large governments, where department-specific concerns can become paramount.

The Cost of Non-Engagement: When a rising power proposes a significant global initiative, the choice to disengage rather than engage and influence can lead to that initiative developing in ways that are less aligned with one’s own values and interests.

Hindsight is 20/20: It’s easy to look back and see the “what-ifs.” The challenge for leaders is to balance immediate strategic concerns with long-term vision, to distinguish between a genuine threat and a potential avenue for shared progress.

The story of the U.S. and the early BRI is a reminder that the path of international relations is paved with choices, each with profound and lasting consequences, often unforeseen in the moment they are made.

https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/1107081534573551/?cft[0]=AZW19F150vzsfQC8BNfjDahPvaUSTWT6H1AVQf6q-WBB07Y9KCVpwH43zrM1q0G9r2bvbN83c3Y8Htm0E9o4vluTzbMfL5StbMKJVpwokOhJhJlAJ1bXZDEzNef2GPVlgrh1C5_xHjEEwx3fDl_jlv_5HD-5IOlTO4k3KsASmxNUyg&tn=%2CO%2CP-R

Economist Stephen Roach’s evolving perspective on Hong Kong’s economic trajectory

American economist Stephen Roach’s evolving perspective on Hong Kong’s economic trajectory offers a compelling case study in how geopolitical and financial dynamics can defy initial pessimistic forecasts. Here are the key takeaways from his reassessment and Hong Kong’s recent performance:

1. Why Roach Revised His Outlook:

Initial Concerns: Stephen Roach published an opinion piece in the Financial Times in February 2024 titled “It pains me to say Hong Kong is over.” —Hong Kong’s deepening integration with a slowing mainland economy, potential erosion of Western financial ties, and U.S.-China tensions. These were reasonable concerns shared by many analysts.

Shift to Optimism (2025): His revised view acknowledges Hong Kong’s adaptive resilience, particularly its role as China’s financial “pressure valve.” As U.S.-China decoupling accelerates, Hong Kong has become a critical conduit for Chinese firms accessing global capital (e.g., via IPOs) and for foreign investors entering mainland markets (via Stock Connect programs). This unique positioning offsets some downsides of geopolitical friction.

2. Market Performance Validates the Rebound:

Hang Seng Index Surge: A 45% rebound (even with periodic volatility) suggests investor confidence persists despite headwinds. The rapid recovery after April 2025’s drop indicates underlying liquidity and institutional support.

IPO Dominance: Surpassing New York in fundraising (HK$76 billion YTD) reflects Hong Kong’s enduring appeal as a listing hub, especially for mainland tech and green-energy firms sidelined from U.S. markets by geopolitical scrutiny.

3. Hong Kong’s Structural Advantages Endure:

Rule of Law & Institutions: Despite political changes, Hong Kong’s legal framework and financial infrastructure remain distinct from mainland China’s, attracting multinationals.

Gateway Role: As China’s capital controls tighten, Hong Kong’s semi-convertible currency and free-flowing capital markets are irreplaceable for cross-border transactions.

Diversification: The city is pivoting toward new growth drivers (wealth management, green finance, offshore RMB trading) to offset traditional sectors like real estate.

4. Lingering Risks Roach Might Be Underweighting:

Geopolitical Wildcards: U.S. secondary sanctions targeting Hong Kong-linked entities could disrupt financial flows.

Mainland Contagion: A prolonged property crisis or deflation in China could spill over into Hong Kong’s asset markets.

Talent Drain: Ongoing emigration of professionals (though offset partially by mainland talent inflows) may erode long-term competitiveness.

5. Broader Implications:

Roach’s reversal underscores that Hong Kong’s fate isn’t binary (“over” or “thriving”) but hinges on its ability to leverage hybridity—bridging Chinese capital and global markets while navigating geopolitical tensions. The city’s resurgence aligns with Beijing’s strategic need for a controlled financial portal to the world, even as it tightens domestic oversight.

Conclusion:

While risks remain, Hong Kong’s recent performance suggests it’s premature to write its obituary. Its resilience lies in institutional strengths and irreplaceable functions within China’s financial system—factors Roach initially underestimated. However, his original warnings about overreliance on mainland integration and geopolitical fragility remain relevant as cautionary notes. The city’s future will depend on balancing these dualities. https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/2132377200608037/?__cft__[0]=AZWOAHHvst_du9SMhHtJT8pPIXlSoaPxtBicwj0Ok-RqPFFJ_PHcARj7-kRi_OGCADyRWbyjK-gA8gpOoYIO-3gH_ewu6Vd8CQ4pOCksynrNfIg0ZATQDWzxcJ19qGIGrreuSej1Zq2h6MJc18Pi2g5cCvqjFoLkmY5A8cXroIEBog&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

The world’s first commercial underwater data center

China has officially launched on June 10, 2025 what is being described as the world’s first commercial underwater data center (UDC) project powered by an offshore wind farm in Shanghai.

Location: Shanghai’s Lin-gang special area, part of the China (Shanghai) Pilot Free Trade Zone.

Power Source: The project is powered by offshore wind energy, making it a significant step towards green computing infrastructure.

Commercial Scale: It’s highlighted as the “world’s first commercial” project of its kind, distinguishing it from earlier prototypes (like Microsoft’s Project Natick).

Partnership: The project is a joint effort involving the administrative committee of Lin-gang, Shanghai Lingang Special Area Investment Holding Group Co., Ltd., and Shanghai Hicloud Technology Co., Ltd.

Phased Development: It will be developed in two phases, starting with a 2.3 MW demonstration unit (expected to be operational by September this year) and scaling up to a 24 MW data cluster.

Environmental Benefits: The UDC integrates natural seawater cooling, which is expected to significantly reduce energy consumption (30-40% compared to land-based centers) and achieve near-zero carbon emissions, with over 90% of energy coming from offshore wind.

This initiative truly marks a notable advancement in sustainable digital infrastructure by combining renewable energy sources with computing infrastructure to meet the growing global demand for low-carbon, AI-ready data solutions. https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/708600755436502/?__cft__[0]=AZVONhRGtvbamo5Qz5AYgbpVsxj9hn04c03yig7fZinbHYpOXZ9SaiyHiwZ1SWdOGfxcs4GSaXfosm6lrAdJgTl8D-R8aRP4m5ZD0Bc6VggjJ4RGCGm1aMkRCtaJRk8LvJw-27LpIL2Yp4PUtVEovxH–3IPlqutmQ_Icf-GX9dW0g&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Grey larva of the Yangtze sturgeon hatched

The first tiny, no bigger than a grain of rice, half-translucent grey larva of the Yangtze sturgeon hatched on April 16, 2025, in the shallow waters of the Chishui River in SW China’s Guizhou. The adult sturgeons were released into the modified habitat on April 3, 2025, and fertilized eggs were observed on April 12, 2025. It is the first successful natural reproduction of the critically endangered Yangtze sturgeon in the wild in over two decades.

This breakthrough was the culmination of years of painstaking efforts by researchers from the Institute of Hydrobiology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Sturgeon Research Institute under the China Three Gorges Corporation, and other institutions, organized by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs. https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/696948593203867/?__cft__[0]=AZWbE99JbBmmdIpgvVhCCL0cVgglCWlYKTYJ7WKRZZ8XzL7d2v1znxzmcLrXmOuM5QyF-UReevFtGoVW_e3yHQLAjs-3UAtia2mMw_VuGlJPl7umkfor4cmvjckQVNH3nCxzIQgM-9sJ98IHPbx6n11FVFhQ6c-5jgpr2GJuWjOJNQ&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

China rejected a simple resource-for-technology exchange

China rejected a simple resource-for-technology exchange. Instead, Beijing elevated the discussion to a strategic level, demanding:

– The complete removal of 352 punitive tariffs imposed since the Trump administration.

– An immediate halt to sanctions on leading Chinese high-tech companies.

– Removal of export barriers for China’s advantageous industries.

– Cessation of discriminatory visa restrictions on Chinese students.

– A clear demand for the US to stop arms sales to Taiwan.

Even if all conditions were met, rare earth supply would only be conditional and partial, not fully open.

The three rats reported not just a commercial negotiation failure, but a profound strategic misjudgment, as China’s conditions far exceeded their authority. https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/1369880650794558/?__cft__[0]=AZVkA6_bHkUvDg_fqiORJc1m34t3Rj6LbaWazcyy54QR1vCJD0Nly1upvAQIY4RTKPJii8tMIpgc_yAkMWkKYbh3odDneEz7viX_1JqruHPfmUfPvVl77PuO44E8WdlTsyUsbKLR08VSWydXcm-UPReG_1AYehUwpYNpSld8JAdAmA&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

51st G7 Summit, hosted by Canada

The 51st G7 Summit, hosted by Canuckstan, is currently taking place from June 15 to June 17, 2025, in Kananaskis, Alberta.

A Summit of Contradictions: The G7 summit, while seemingly representing Western unity, is characterized by conflicting interests among its members, with no single player’s interests fully aligning.

Conflicts Among Main G7 Members:

Trade Disputes: Trump’s “America First” policy has led to trade conflicts with allies like Canuckstan and Europe, imposing tariffs and paralyzing the World Trade Organization’s appellate body.

Geopolitical Tensions: Disagreements persist on issues such as the Iran nuclear deal, with European nations expressing concerns about potential war, and the Ukraine conflict, where European allies fear Trump might make unfavorable agreements with Russia for personal gain.

Ideological Clashes: Japan’s new prime minister’s emphasis on a rules-based international order clashes with Trump’s “might makes right” approach.

Problematic Guest Invitations:

India’s Controversial Presence: Canuckstan invited India to the summit to boost its presence in the Indo-Pacific, but Canuck intelligence has identified India as a significant threat due to its alleged interference in Canuck elections and other activities, creating an awkward situation.

Guests Who Faced Trump’s Ire: The list of guests includes leaders like Ukraine’s Zelenskyy and South Africa’s Cyril Ramaphosa, both of whom have had public and unpleasant encounters with Trump.

Alternative Worldviews: The presence of a leader like Spain’s president, who is actively forming alliances with countries holding different worldviews, further complicates the summit’s dynamics.

Carney’s Three Major Challenges:

Negotiating with a difficult counterpart like Trump.

Managing a guest list that has alienated many.

Dealing with pressure from human rights organizations.

The “Fire Fighting” Agreement: A leaked unofficial protocol suggests that in times of deadlock, Canuckstan, known for its conciliatory spirit, will propose a “fire fighting” agreement. This refers to an agreement on combating wildfires, seen as a universally acceptable topic to ensure a joint statement is produced, even if it’s a minimal one.

The Real Challenges Unaddressed: While leaders are caught up in geopolitical squabbles, critical global challenges like the development and regulation of AI, and the potential impact of quantum computing on financial systems, remain largely unaddressed.

Future of International Politics: The summit’s complexities signal a future of international politics characterized by increased fragmentation, pragmatism, and a focus on transactional relationships rather than trust. https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/1601744207166473/?__cft__[0]=AZXx91eDylZ5gYgRb_b0dRchSoGNpRrO1fIsW_7D5WxdeyunLnueT6-NKz-R5af6l67wW_k2eymA7uvW5Id3-jqeXZNkwiUAOXbsKBepQ-1uQg0tKzcOaWxb-DN18T72LwIAoQvl0j5LOb05cnIB1U7tK5OGugCzK2BcbF94he78fw&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Relationship between Lithuania and China

The relationship between Lithuania and China has undergone a significant transformation, moving from generally smooth diplomatic ties to a severe diplomatic and economic dispute.

Background of the Relationship

Early Diplomatic Ties and the “One China” Principle:

Lithuania and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) officially established diplomatic relations on September 14, 1991, shortly after Lithuania regained its independence. Prior to this, China had recognized Lithuania de jure on September 7, 1991. Like many other nations, Lithuania recognized the “One China” principle, acknowledging Beijing’s position that there is only one China and Taiwan is part of it. For decades, bilateral relations developed without major incidents, including high-level visits and agreements, such as a Memorandum of Understanding on the Belt and Road Initiative in 2017.

Deterioration of Relations – The “Taiwan Card”:

The relationship began to sour significantly around 2021, primarily due to Lithuania’s increasingly assertive stance on China’s human rights record and its growing engagement with Taiwan. Key events that led to the breakdown include:

Withdrawal from the “17+1” format (May 2021): Lithuania announced its withdrawal from the cooperation framework between China and Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC), a move seen as a rejection of China’s influence in the region. Other Baltic states, Estonia and Latvia, followed suit in August 2022.

Opening of the Taiwanese Representative Office (November 2021): The most significant point of contention was Lithuania’s decision to allow Taiwan to open a representative office in Vilnius under the name “Taiwanese Representative Office in Lithuania.” This was a diplomatic red line for Beijing, as most countries hosting Taiwanese missions refer to them as “Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Offices” to avoid implying state-to-state relations. China viewed this as a violation of the “One China” principle and an attempt to create a “one China, one Taiwan” impression.

Criticism of Human Rights and Chinese Technology: Lithuania had also openly criticized China’s human rights situation in Xinjiang and Hong Kong and expressed concerns about Chinese technology, advising consumers against purchasing Chinese smartphones due to potential censorship features.

China’s Retaliation:

In response to these actions, particularly the Taiwan office, China escalated its diplomatic and economic pressure:

Diplomatic Downgrade: China recalled its ambassador from Vilnius and demanded Lithuania recall its ambassador from Beijing. Relations were downgraded to the chargé d’affaires level on November 21, 2021, a rare move for China.

Economic Coercion: Beijing implemented severe informal trade restrictions, delisting Lithuania as a country of origin in its customs system and blocking imports from the Baltic state. China also pressured multinational companies to stop using Lithuanian components in their products if they wished to maintain access to the Chinese market. This led to a significant disruption of trade, although China has denied claims of targeting Lithuania. The EU has since launched a case at the World Trade Organization (WTO) against China over these discriminatory trade practices.

Future of the Relationship

The future of the Lithuania-China relationship remains highly uncertain and complex.

Current Standoff and Diplomatic Impasse:

As of mid-2025, the relationship is largely at an impasse. The recent reports of Chinese diplomatic staff bidding farewell suggest that China has no immediate intention of restoring full relations. While Lithuania has expressed a desire to normalize relations, it has also emphasized that it will not make political concessions, particularly regarding its ties with Taiwan. China, for its part, insists on Lithuania adhering strictly to the “One China” principle, which likely includes changing the name of the Taiwanese representative office.

Key Factors Influencing the Future:

– Taiwan: The core issue remains Lithuania’s relationship with Taiwan. While some Lithuanian politicians, including the incoming Prime Minister Gintautas Paluckas, have expressed a desire to restore ambassadorial-level representation, they have also stressed maintaining trade and cultural ties with Taiwan. This creates a difficult balancing act, as China views any perceived elevation of Taiwan’s international status as a direct challenge.

– EU and USeless Influence: Lithuania’s strong stance has garnered support from other EU members and the United States, who view China’s actions as economic coercion. The EU’s ongoing WTO case and its “anti-coercion instrument” demonstrate a collective effort to push back against such tactics. The outcome of USeless presidential elections could also influence Lithuania’s approach, as its pivot away from China has been partly driven by national security concerns and its alliance with the USeless.

Public Opinion in Lithuania: While the government’s policy towards China has been controversial domestically, polls in 2022 showed that a significant portion of the Lithuanian population views China as an unfriendly country, though only a minority actively supports the government’s policy. This mixed public sentiment could impact the new government’s approach.

Economic Diversification: Following China’s economic pressure, Lithuania has actively sought to diversify its trade partnerships and reduce its dependency on the Chinese market. Taiwan has also offered economic support and investment to Lithuania. This diversification may reduce Lithuania’s incentive to fully capitulate to China’s demands.

China’s Position on Russia: China’s continued alignment with Russia, particularly in the context of the war in Ukraine, further complicates relations. For Lithuania, which views Russia as an existential threat, China’s “pro-Russian neutrality” makes restoring close ties more problematic.

In essence, while there are signals of a desire for normalization from the Lithuanian side, the fundamental disagreements over Taiwan and China’s broader geopolitical stance make a full restoration of the relationship to its previous state unlikely in the near future. The relationship is likely to remain at a lower diplomatic level, with economic ties continuing to be impacted by political tensions, unless significant concessions are made by either side on the core issues.

https://www.facebook.com/jeff.mah.5/videos/4226551550912806/?cft[0]=AZVnmJsbuoLXo8f1h28fIHeK0drR_KdPNBBuZTgC-lLy1VeV7ddqx3Ye4XYL0orggqm60Nwgjl7e6bZA45cTn4JcuVf-U6vPhx7rabLFx8mned3WlgcAduyaArm629QanB5G3OJWUmu5KL-SG6h0NJwswRySG2cMaVruvX2_zUJgAA&tn=%2CO%2CP-R