I don’t understand your point and i don’t see a mention of russian foreign investments in the infographic(, probably in the category “Others” ?)
(It’s not related to your comment but this post also made me think of investments in Ukraine’s economy to incentivize its political alignement change, closer with its past values and those of its south(, if it doesn’t end up absorbed in a tri-alliance with Belarus or something else keeping the n.a.t.o. out, who knows), as well as the topic of spheres of influence)
Because your post implies that a rise in foreign investment is a precursor to regime change and coup attempts. In my original comment I’m telling you that Russia is also counted in the foreign investment number so colour revolution based only off of this data is unlikely.
Ah, i’m sorry but i can’t wrap my head around why counting(, or not,) Russia in the foreign investments number would change something about this likelihood : if it is absent then China is still enough(, and if it is present then this likelihood would increase). Sorry for my lack of comprehension and feel free not to explain yourself further on this detail if you don’t consider it important.
colour revolution based only off of this data is unlikely
While i don’t see the link with Russia(, since the p.r.c. is enough in itself), i entirely agree with this quote, it can just be considered as one of the indicators of geopolitical alignment, and i felt interesting to share this ~discovery with Lemmygrad.
You do realize that “foreign investment” also includes investments from Russia, correct?
I don’t understand your point and i don’t see a mention of russian foreign investments in the infographic(, probably in the category “Others” ?)
(It’s not related to your comment but this post also made me think of investments in Ukraine’s economy to incentivize its political alignement change, closer with its past values and those of its south(, if it doesn’t end up absorbed in a tri-alliance with Belarus or something else keeping the n.a.t.o. out, who knows), as well as the topic of spheres of influence)
Because your post implies that a rise in foreign investment is a precursor to regime change and coup attempts. In my original comment I’m telling you that Russia is also counted in the foreign investment number so colour revolution based only off of this data is unlikely.
Ah, i’m sorry but i can’t wrap my head around why counting(, or not,) Russia in the foreign investments number would change something about this likelihood : if it is absent then China is still enough(, and if it is present then this likelihood would increase). Sorry for my lack of comprehension and feel free not to explain yourself further on this detail if you don’t consider it important.
While i don’t see the link with Russia(, since the p.r.c. is enough in itself), i entirely agree with this quote, it can just be considered as one of the indicators of geopolitical alignment, and i felt interesting to share this ~discovery with Lemmygrad.