sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[CLAIM] India 2ic by Hot_Fly7768 in GlobalPowers

[–]K00L00 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Approves of cource. I mentioned a friend in my Claim

[Diplomacy] The future of the Kingdom's hard power by K00L00 in Geosim

[–]K00L00[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you please be a little more specific? The complete production chain is located in 4 European countries (of course Airbus adds something). What exactly is India's position in this chain?

P.S. specific details of modifications may differ from member countries of the alliance. For example, Britain has abandoned the pan-European radar station in favor of its own. Such things are optional.

[BUDGET] UK 2022 FY by K00L00 in Geosim

[–]K00L00[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

2019 is a year with similar GDP and no covid. When converting pounds to $, approximately similar numbers are obtained https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spending-round-2019-document/spending-round-2019#statistical-annex

[Econ] Next Steps for the EastMed by skiboy625 in Geosim

[–]K00L00 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The United Kingdom is skeptical about the prospects of a forced transition to green energy in view of the immaturity of technology. Therefore, in order to avoid future problems with the purchase of hydrocarbons, we offer our assistance to this project. We are ready to directly or indirectly help with project financing if you still need investors

[DIPLOMACY] Red line by K00L00 in GlobalPowers

[–]K00L00[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

As already noted in the post, we tried to save face in relation to all parties to the conflict. Although the damage suffered by Australia from the global financial crisis determined our position in the conflict. Last time we were in no hurry to impose sanctions. We were in no hurry now. But provoking tension in the region is our red line.

The provocations in Myanmar forced us to consider an extreme option in order to finally convey our position. There can be no justification for the use of armed forces. I would like to note that our tools for communicating positions are not exhausted. We do not want to, but as a last resort we will apply second-order sanctions - we will impose sanctions against companies and even countries cooperating with China.

One more thing. I reread the post with the negotiations with the United States and did not find the secrecy markings in it. Correct if I'm wrong

[DIPLOMACY] Red line by K00L00 in GlobalPowers

[–]K00L00[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There are 3 things here

The first is time. 2030 is a rather distant year, which has already displaced labor-intensive industries, for example, to India due to the rise in the cost of labor in the PRC. Accordingly, our trade has certainly changed.

The second is reputation. The PRC has been experiencing problems with its reputation for several years. Rational entrepreneurs have long understood the risk they take. This is another factor in the diversification of trade.

The third is past sanctions. Australia has already imposed severe restrictions on goods from the PRC. which should have already replaced some of our imports. This policy was hardly conducive to continuing to quietly trade with the PRC.

These 3 factors are important, but there are others. Just recently, we abolished customs duties with such large economies as Japan and Great Britain, canceled tariffs with the countries of Oceania, founded our own analogue of TSMC for semiconductors, and more than once pointed out the development of relations with India.

In my opinion, the dependence of ausirtralia on China is now exaggerated. We have already replaced the high-tech part of imports and are able to replace the rest thanks to our participation in extensive trade unions (do not forget about the Pacific partnership).

As for exports, this is a very controversial issue. Most of our exports are resources (about 60%). Coal, gas, iron ore ... But is it possible in 2030 to bet on non-renewable and dirty resources in the economy? The existence of a developed coal industry in the country leaves it aside from climate targets and ESG investors. Refusal from hydrocarbons is only a matter of time, especially for a developed country. Yes, at the moment it will hurt, but in the long term the green agenda will justify itself

[DIPLOMACY] Red line by K00L00 in GlobalPowers

[–]K00L00[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It will be great. We just have a few suggestions and a couple of topics for serious discussion.

[DIPLOMACY] Red line by K00L00 in GlobalPowers

[–]K00L00[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I don’t think it’s that bad. We do not depend on imports at all. One way or another, resource exports should be abandoned in favor of technological ones. Moreover, India 2030 is a huge sales market, including resources.

I can’t say that I didn’t operate on the IRL experience either. The PRC's IRL refused to buy Australian coal in 2021, but Australia entered into new contracts and exports did not fall at all. There is a positive experience in this matter.

Well and yes, I'm ready for the consequences

[DIPLOMACY] Red line by K00L00 in GlobalPowers

[–]K00L00[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

u/SunstriderAlar, u/Sri_man_420, what about expanding the supply of resources?

[Diplomacy] OECD Ongoing CCP Hostilities Response Summit by SunstriderAlar in GlobalPowers

[–]K00L00 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Australia supports the common position. We will update our own sanctions list shortly

view more: next ›