Its hard to gauge what CCP rally wants to do, because they project enormous power which may not be accurate. They seem to have ambitions but its questionable how much of what they are threatening is psychological warfare, result of their own paranoia and propaganda and how much of it is real threat, in terms of military power. After all they depend on have totalitarian control, which means they have to constantly balance internal and external security. Currently they are spending more money and resources on internal security than on external, and if they were to go in some kind of all out war againt any country they would face several major problems at home and abroad. I think the fear of losing control over their own population and distrust of each other's communists party members is making them very hesitant of engaging in external expansion on any grand scale militarily.

Its one thing to send spies and to send small military groups somewhere and another to go on the conquest. And off course once you conquer a nation or region you have to mainting your control and that is much, much harder. That is probably the reason why Hong Kong and Taiwan won't be invaded any time soon. CCP just can't assimilate millions of people into China and control the flow of information and risk destabilizing itself to that extent all at once, so they are playing long game.

Also China has growing internal marketplace which they want to develop so they don't have to depend on the external markets exclusively. With Trump putting them on notice with American market they are pushing now for both EU and domestic market, hoping that they can develop domestic market to the point where they won't be as vulnerable as they are now. If American and EU would close their trade with China , everyone would feel it, but China would be in deep trouble, because it relied so much on the external market for its growth and its the growth that keeps the people in support of CCP leadership. If America and EU were hypothetically cut off trade with China than CCP would have a very had time selling the narrative of amazing future to the Chinese people who now don't have a job. And that is the kind of instability CCP fears the most. So they are doing all they can to trade with EU, feeling just how much damage Trump tariffs and sanctions have made CCP vulnerable.

I imagine Australia is having similar effect but on smaller scale. I have heard that Trump has talked to Japan, India, Australia and Taiwan to create a kind of unofficial Asia Nato pack allying against China expansion. And China has tried to make alliance with Iran and Pakistan for their belt and road initiative. I imagine that this also helped trump make peace deals in Middle East with countries who don't like Iran and Pakistan. On top of that many of these countries are on the back end working with globalists in WEF. So its on one side a global government but on the other everyone is looking for their own interests as well. Xi does not want to be a lapdog to Klaus Schwab, but Klaus can offer connections and protection that Xi needs to expand CCP influence. And Klaus and rest of the globalists need countries like China under CCP and USA and Biden to be open about the whole global threat of climate change , global governance , carbon scam and sustainable development.

Bottom line there are lot of competing interests nationality and ideologically there is globalists vs rest of us. I assume will see alliance being made and indeed new world order emerging from all this, but it may not be the kind of new world order globalists planed. It may be something very different. But we are on the brink of something big soon I feel.

@Krunoslav Do you honestly not see China as playing a long game and using useful idiots like WHO and the UN and poorer countries to bring in a "new world order" with it as its head?

@Lightman I do see that, but its hard to say who is playing who. Sometimes it seems China is playing UN and sometimes it seems they are playing China.

After all it was the technocrats that got in touch with CCP and brought them into the game. so it hard to say if along the way CCP gain the control or is it being used for globalists purpose.

Take Great Reset idea for example. its a moronic idea , very similar to Mao's Great Leap Forward that failed in China. That idea of technocracy existed under different names like agenda 21 and agenda 230 and it was not invented by CCP or promoted. Now its Great Reset, fourth industrial revolution thing , mainly promoted by Klaus Schwab of the World "communist" Forum.

The confusing part is that in their 14th 5 year plan CCP has put sustainable development and climate change first. So is CCP really that stupid or is it too being sold this idea by the globalists? That part is unclear.

The “Normalization” of U.S.-China Relations

With Mao hovering near death; with China’s political future in limbo; and with Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford, lacking both the political resources and the political will needed to push U.S.-China relations to the next level, the mid-1970s were marked by a sort of holding pattern.

President Jimmy Carter laid the groundwork for normalization.

In August 1977, Carter sent Secretary of State Cyrus Vance to Beijing.

President Carter’s national security advisor, Zbigneiw Brzezinski, convinced the president that it was time for the United States to “play the China card” against the Soviet Union.

Zbigneiw Brzezinski is the co-founder of Trilateral Commision (technocratic globalists exclusive club), and Cyrus Vance was one of its members. In fact mots of Jimmy Carter and later people in US politics were from trilateral commission or worked for it. So CCP was late to the game and it was invited.

However it is possible along the way CCP took control of the plans and asserted itself as top player.

@Lightman
According to each issue of the official Trilateral Commission quarterly magazine Trialogue,

The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 by private citizens of Western Europe, Japan and North America to foster closer cooperation among these three regions on common problems. It seeks to improve public understanding of such problems, to support proposals for handling them jointly, and to nurture habits and practices of working together among these regions.

Further, Trialogue and other official writings made clear their stated goal of creating a “New International Economic Order”. President George H.W. Bush later talked openly about creating a “New World Order”, which has since become a synonymous phrase.

Rockefeller was chairman of the ultra-powerful Chase Manhattan Bank, a director of many major multinational corporations and “endowment funds” and had long been a central figure in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Brzezinski, a brilliant strategist for one-world idealism, was a professor at Columbia University and the author of several books that have served as “policy guidelines” for the Trilateral Commission. Brzezinski served as the Commission’s first executive director from its inception in 1973 until late 1976 when he was appointed by President Jimmy Carter as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

The initial Commission membership consisted of approximately three hundred people, with roughly one hundred each from Europe, Japan and North America. Membership was also roughly divided among academics, politicians and corporate magnates; these included international bankers, leaders of prominent labor unions and corporate directors of media giants.

The word “commission” was puzzling since it is usually associated with instrumentalities set up by governments. It seemed out of place for a private group unless we could determine that it really was an arm of a government, an unseen government, different from the visible government in Washington. The inclusion of European and Japanese members indicated a global government rather than a national government. We hoped that the concept of a sub-rosa world government was just wishful thinking on the part of the Trilateral Commissioners. The facts, however, lined up quite pessimistically.

It is important to note that Brzezinski and Rockefeller did not initially seek advice from the Council on Foreign Relations but rather from the global Bilderberg group. If the Council on Foreign Relations could be said to be a spawning ground for many of the concepts of one-world idealism, then the Trilateral Commission was the “task force” assembled to assault the beachhead. Already the Commission had placed its members in the top posts the U.S. had to offer.

President James Earl Carter, the Georgia peanut farmer turned politician who promised, “I will never lie to you,” was chosen to join the Commission by Brzezinski in 1973. It was Brzezinski, in fact, who first identified Carter as presidential timber, and subsequently educated him in economics, foreign policy, and the ins-and-outs of world politics. Upon Carter’s election, his first appointment placed Brzezinski as assistant to the president for national security matters. More commonly, he was called the head of the National Security Council because he answered only to the president; some rightly said Brzezinski held the second most powerful position in the U.S.

Carter’s running mate, Walter Mondale, was also a member of the Commission.

In total, Carter appointed no fewer than twenty Trilateral Commissioners to top government posts, including:

Zbigniew Brzezinski - National Security Advisor
Cyrus Vance - Secretary of State
Harold Brown - Secretary of Defense
W. Michael Blumenthal - Secretary of the Treasury
Warren Christopher - Deputy Secretary of State
Lucy Wilson Benson - Under Secretary of State for Security Affairs
Richard Cooper - Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs
Richard Holbrooke - Under Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Sol Linowitz - co-negotiator on the Panama Canal Treaty
Gerald Smith - Ambassador-at-Large for Nuclear Power Negotiations
Elliott Richardson - Delegate to the Law of the Sea Conference
Richard Gardner - Ambassador to Italy
Anthony Solomon - Under Secretary of the Treasury for Monetary Affairs
Paul Warnke - Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Robert R. Bowie - Deputy Director of Intelligence For National Estimates
C. Fred Bergsten - Under Secretary of Treasury
James Schlesinger - Secretary of Energy
Elliot Richardson - Delegate to Law of the Sea
Leonard Woodcock - Chief envoy to China
Andrew Young - Ambassador to the United Nations

When you include Carter and Mondale, these Commission members represented almost one-third of the entire membership from the United States roster.

@Lightman
So from 1970's until Trump era, no matter who people of America voted it was always people working for triladeral comission.

Things get even more murky when you look at when does CCP memebrs get into World Bank top spots and its in the last few terms. So are they appointed or did they influrated it? I'm not sure. That part is unclear to me.

Thus, every Administration since Carter has had top-level Trilateral Commission representation through the President or Vice-president, or both! It is important to note that Trilateral hegemony has transcended political parties; they have dominated - and continue to dominate - both the Republican and Democrat parties with equal aplomb.

In addition, the Administration before Carter was very friendly and useful to Trilateral doctrine as well; President Gerald Ford took the reins after President Richard Nixon resigned and then appointed Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President. Neither Ford nor Rockefeller were members of the Trilateral Commission, but Nelson was David Rockefeller’s brother and that says enough. According to Nelson Rockefeller’s memoirs, he originally introduced then-governor Jimmy Carter to David and Brzezinski.

How has the Trilateral Commission orchestrated their goal of creating a New International Economic Order? Most notably, they seated their own members at the top of the institutions of global trade, global banking and foreign policy.

For instance, the World Bank is one of the most critical mechanisms in the engine of globalization. Since the founding of the Trilateral Commission in 1973, there have been only seven World Bank presidents, all of whom were appointed by the President. Of these eight, six were pulled from the ranks of the Trilateral Commission!

Robert McNamara (1968-1981)

A.W. Clausen (1981-1986)

Barber Conable (1986-1991)

Lewis Preston (1991-1995)

James Wolfenson (1995-2005)

Paul Wolfowitz (2005-2007)

Robert Zoellick (2007-2012)

Jim Yong Kim (2012-Present)

Another good evidence of domination is the position of U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), which is critically involved in negotiating the many international trade treaties and agreements that have been necessary to create the New International Economic Order. Since 1977, there have been twelve USTRs appointed by the President. Nine have been members of the Trilateral Commission!

Robert S. Strauss (1977-1979)

Reubin O’D. Askew (1979-1981)

William E. Brock III (1981-1985)

Clayton K. Yeutter (1985-1989)

Carla A. Hills (1989-1993)

Mickey Kantor (1993-1997)

Charlene Barshefsky (1997-2001)

Robert Zoellick (2001-2005)

Rob Portman (2005-2006)

Susan Schwab (2006-2009)

Ron Kirk (2009-2013)

Michael Froman (2013-Present)

This is not to say that Clayton Yeuter, Rob Portman and Ron Kirk were not friendly to Trilateral goals because they clearly were, and each had significant involvement with other Trilateral members in the past.

The Secretary of State cabinet position has seen its share of Trilaterals as well: Henry Kissinger (Nixon, Ford), Cyrus Vance (Carter), Alexander Haig (Reagan), George Shultz (Reagan), Lawrence Eagleburger (G.H.W. Bush), Warren Christopher (Clinton) and Madeleine Albright (Clinton) There were some Acting Secretaries of State that are also noteworthy: Philip Habib (Carter), Michael Armacost (G.H.W. Bush), Arnold Kantor (Clinton), Richard Cooper (Clinton).

Hillary Clinton (Obama) was not a Trilateral, but her husband, William Clinton, was.

Lastly, it should be noted that the Federal Reserve has likewise been dominated by Trilaterals: Arthur Burns (1970-1978), Paul Volker (1979-1987), Alan Greenspan (1987-2006). While the Federal Reserve is a privately-owned corporation, the President “chooses” the Chairman to a perpetual appointment. The more recent heads of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke and Janet Yelen, are not members of the Trilateral Commission, but they clearly followed the same globalist policies as their predecessors.

The point raised here is that Trilateral domination over the U.S. Executive Branch has not only continued but has been strengthened from 1976 to the present. The pattern has been deliberate and persistent: Appoint members of the Trilateral Commission to critical positions of power so that they can carry out Trilateral policies.

The question is and has always been, do these policies originate in consensus meetings of the Trilateral Commission where two-thirds of the members are not U.S. citizens? The answer is all too obvious.

Trilateral-friendly defenders attempt to sweep criticism aside by suggesting that membership in the Trilateral Commission is incidental and that it only demonstrates the otherwise high quality of appointees. Are we to believe that in a country of 317 million people only these 100 or so are qualified to hold such critical positions? Again, the answer is all too obvious.

@Krunoslav China is playing the long game... they are happy to consider strategy for years and to have strategy play out for years... it would seem that under its current ruler that he has decided the UN and its leftist progressive lean suits a grand plan that would see them the dominant country in the world... example placing people in various countries of influence etc to move them into position to better enable their aspirations.
China isn't being used by others they don't even follow the rules protocols and treaties they sign up to.
Oh and don't get obsessed with Conspiranut crap like the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, the Rockefellers, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the protocols of the elders of zion, club of Rome etc, etc, etc...
The reality is the movement of countries and governments and the march through our Institutions by the Socialists and Postmodernist lunatics.

@Lightman " Conspiranut crap" not really. It is actually true. Do your research. But also its true that there are postmodernists lunatics and that there are CCP out there. But I don't buy the idea that one of these is running it all, it seems to me that there are interplay and competition between various groups.

Even CCP is not coherent group per se, there are fractions and people in it that fight for power. I know you like to hate on CCP and think its behind every shadow, but I think its just one of the players. A major player yes, but not the only one.

@Krunoslav I've done it.... that's why I mentioned them. I don't hate on the CCP at all, but I can see what they are doing and where it is leading and I don't like that place one little bit.
Don't lie about me and what I think.
I like most others in the west was willing to give them a chance and the benefit of the doubt... they trashed that themselves.
China don't need anyone they are a superpower, currently they are playing Nth Korea, Iran and Russia who they see as allies or in more accurate terms useful idiots.

@Lightman I've also notice that you have a very high opinion of your own limited research so you cramp everything under CCP worldview and never really engage with any opinion or suggestion I mention. Must be the reason we end up most of our exchanges insulting one another. But that's ok, we don't have to agree on anything really. Its just a forum.

@Lightman "China don't need anyone they are a superpower," well that is pretty bold statement. I don't think its true, though. Everyone needs someone. CCP propaganda is not the reflection of their own reality, after all if it was, they would not need propaganda. They have their weakness and they do need other countries , they just don't like to admit it.

I also am skeptical about Russia being useful idiot in this, they invented the term. They know what is up. And I'm not sure they are allies to China as most people seem to think.

@Krunoslav then you'll also be aware of the phrase... the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Russia are not Americas friend yet and by the time they realise what's going on and what side they should be on it will be a bit late. Russian frogs in slowly boiling water. Remember both Russia and China are Communist countries and they have mutual relationships and interests.

@Lightman Well , will know soon enough. I've heard Putin kicked out both Sorors activists and China spies in recent times. I've also heard that someone send the message to America about the reactant hacking incident, as a message that they they are allies. Some speculate it could have been Russia. I guess will find out soon enough. UK and Canada and CCP are closer allies than Russia and CCP from what I can see.

@Krunoslav I don't engage you very often and usually don't insult you.

@Krunoslav I don't believe I said Russia and China were allies...

@Lightman Fair enough.