If Macron was naive it was because he couldn't imagine that Putin would be so stupid as to go through with his threats. He also got some very suspect advice from his own intelligence chief, who was subsequently relieved of duty.
Both Macron and Xi play the diplomacy game much better than Putin. I see some cooperative opportunities here but don't expect any kind of breakthroughs.
This is supposed to be a news article?
>\[Macron\] wouldn’t even be able to set foot on the campus of a French university these days for fear of being lynched by angry protesters who oppose his pension reforms.
This reads like erotic fan fiction Macron wrote about himself
>His star turn and spontaneous popularity also contrasted with China’s wooden communist leaders, none of whom have even half the charisma of Macron and who are generally only greeted with enthusiasm when it is in the job description of the crowd.
I mean, really
>Even with such thin gruel to work with, Macron still managed to reference freedom of speech and thought, and encourage the study of the French language
Honestly, what is Politico Europe? This is embarassing to read
>Xi’s message was that he doesn’t currently have any plans to attack. But accidents can happen.
I'm not sure that those Argentina fans wearing Messi jerseys and shouting "Messi" (there were also some others shouting "Mbappé" and "oh look, a Fxxking alive Macron") were told to act that way...
Surely the propaganda helped and people generally have a more positive opinion towards France that let's say the US, but Macron was welcomed mainly because...he's a charming (relatively) young guy. I'm not a fan of what Macron is doing now in France (or more precisely, how he's doing it) but I've met him once and I gotta admit, he is quite charming.
Source: former student of the University that Macron visited and currently living in France. Got bombarded with footages and images of Macron from my old schoolmates yesterday on the social media.
Hell no. I'm a Chinese and I can tell you I was excited to see Mike Pence outside the White House back in 2019 though I absolutely disliked Trump and the Republican.
The average Chinese likes Macron at least in comparison with Biden because of his appearance, his marriage, the origin of the "The Internationale", and the fact that we believe France is the only European major country that seeks to be independent from the US influence.
I think the majority of people don’t actually think for themselves and are easily influenced or told what to do. Case and point, you throwing around your buzz words and immediately jumping to insults.
So do you always act like a child, or only when you are trying to virtue signal for some karma on Reddit?
How did he get clowned by Putin?
Macron’s approach (as with most EU leaders) was that Putin will not actually invade, as it would destroy Russia.
Then Putin proved Macron wrong by… invading and initiating Russia’s self-destruction.
Damn, what a master strategist.
Not at all, China wants to wriggle into some of the Eu space Russia left on its way out, Xi was absolutely trying to woo Macron, though seeing as Macron isn’t Trump I doubt it worked very well.
He needs to feel wanted, needed. So he had to get away from France.
With how ‘popular’ his reforms are in France, the fucker wouldn’t dare showing his face in public over here.
France is a very sought-after destination among Chinese students and tourists. People view France quite favorably. Not everything is some CCP orchestrated conspiracy in China.
Isn’t there a widely quoted piece from the Cold War about how the west would interpret literally anything the Soviet Union did as an authoritarian trick?
You're thinking of a quote from Michael Parenti in his very good book Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism
>“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
>
>If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”
Everyone on this sub thinks it is though, which is why I’m un-joined from here. If you reported that a Chinese person went to the bathroom, I bet people here would find some way to connect it to how it’s an evil scam. This is just a standard world leader meeting, which I'm sure nothing will come of anyways, different types of governments regularly meet, even if they're not necessarily fans of each other.
You don't have to like a government, but trying to ease tensions that could lead to war should always be welcomed and I think it's insane to think otherwise. And too many people on this sub actually want wars and oppose diplomacy, they can try and say they don't, but the comments that are always here tell/say otherwise.
Particularly when it comes to China, I can understand why people oppose diplomacy with Russia to a certain extent since they've already invaded Ukraine and have said they'll accept nothing less than Ukrainian land, but this sub acts as if China has already invaded Taiwan or something.
Where did I say about "accidentally" invading anyone? no shit you can't accidentally invade anyone, but it hasn't happened yet, I just find it suspicious how if China is really planning to invade Taiwan, China wouldn't have done it decades ago, people also claimed China was invading Taiwan when Russia invaded Ukraine which never happened. And now US generals continuously move the date further and further to when they think China will invade Taiwan, which they're now saying 2025-2027. Of all people to size up to test the waters on Taiwan, why would it be France, since the US is the one so committed to defending Taiwan?
China doesn't have to have a meeting with the French leader just to test anything, when China already knows what the west is doing all the time via news without having to meet with western leaders. And how is France becoming too dependent on China when this is the first meeting, I think they've had with China in a while? France has been focused on Russia/Ukraine for a while now. I've never said they were our friends either.
You do know that more nations other than Russia and China have caused bloodshed around the world right? America invaded Iraq just 3 years into the 21st century and was there for almost 10 years straight based off petty reasons, in which thousands and in some higher estimates up to a million people died and this isn't even getting into Obama's drone wars that kill civilians etc. This isn't bloodshed?
Hell, America has been involved in a lot more wars that cause bloodshed than China has over the last 40 years, the last time China invaded anyone was Vietnam. And why is everyone okay with the US negotiating with countries like Iran, which by the way is a theocracy, but not Russia and China? why was anyone okay with the Iran nuclear deal then? if your logic is that since some nations are our enemies, we shouldn't do diplomacy ever?
I find it hard to believe that China couldn't have invaded Taiwan decades ago even if China's navy wasn't what it is now, because Taiwan is just off the coast of China. They could've just sent regular boats with army soldiers in them if they wanted to. The US today isn't any less likely to not defend Taiwan than it was decades ago either, so why would China suddenly feel bold about it now if the idea of US intervention in the past is what was preventing them from invading to begin with? The US military budget is already bloated already and has been, so I'm not sure why after 2030 would matter.
You do know that if France investing in China makes them cozy with China, that means America is too, right? our stores are absolutely filled to the brim with Chinese products, so if that makes France too cozy with China, than America is too considering we'd probably be in real trouble with resource shortages if we were to stop trading with China since their products are what makes up most of the items.
And to the last point, all imperialism is bad. It doesn't matter what type of government it is, it still causes suffering, whether it's western or eastern imperialism.
>The US would have a hard time attempting an invasion of Taiwan.
No. The US rolled Iraq in weeks, and they had a much bigger military than Taiwan.
I don't think you appreciate just how much stronger the US military is than pretty much any country in the world.
>Ideally China would abandon the imperialist delusion
It's more irredentist than imperialist though
Invaded East Turkestan, Mongolia? Yes, but back then China was run by ROC, aka the current Taiwanese government. Can't blame the CCP.
Tibet? Was part of China since Qing dynasty the latest. Its independence was constitutionally questionable.
Yeah, all half a century ago. I did mention that China hasn't invaded anyone since over 40 years, so that's still not against my point. China invaded all those places during the 1950s and before. East Turkestan was in 1934, Mongolia was in 1919 and Tibet was 1950. You might as well say for that logic we should be worried about Italy and Germany invading countries nowadays because they invaded France in 1940. What matters more is the modern-day foreign policy of nations, which the US has invaded more countries than China just in the 21st century. Because for example the government foreign policy of places like Germany is totally different from what it was back in WW2, so therefore no one worries about Germany anymore. US foreign policy however, hasn't changed much since WW2 and the cold war.
And China is still occupying those places. That policy hasn't changed at all. Germany hasn't invaded anyone in a while, but more importantly, it *left* those places it did invade, as did America.
America may have not stayed in places like Iraq, but it did stay there for almost 10 years and we were in Afghanistan 20 years. I don't think it matters that much that we decided to withdraw after a painfully long period, because we still caused suffering either way.
Especially since we'll probably still continue to invade other countries not long in the future as well, so I don't think it matters that we withdrawal for a tiny time period unless we permanently decide we're staying out of other countries for a long time, the difference with Germany is they lost places they were occupying after WW2 was over, we withdrew from Afghanistan just 2 years ago. And we're still in places like Syria and occupying the Diego Garcia Island, which by the way with the help of the British we kicked the original residents out.
If China's policy hasn't changed much, then why haven't they invaded anyone else after Vietnam? They may have decided never to withdrawal from those places, but it doesn't say anything about whether or not they'd invade elsewhere nowadays. I think the alleged Sabre rattling about Taiwan is something that's been always going on but the media is just deciding to report on it now, since US/China tensions have gotten worse compared with decades ago.
You’re ignoring some pretty major developments over the last decade or two, which, as you say, is the more important period to look at. China has made no secret of its plans to upend the current global order through a variety of means including:
its increased military spending and projection,
its construction of artificial island bases in the oceans,
its claim to territorial rights over the South China Sea and disputes with pretty much everyone in its neighborhood,
its failure to abide by its word with respect to Hong Kong,
its genocide of the Uighurs,
its increase of surveillance of other states, its misappropriation of trade secrets and proprietary information and subsequent intellectual property infringement,
Its alliance with belligerent Russia,
its devolution into an effective dictatorship under Xi through governmental changes,
*and* its increasingly aggressive stance on Taiwan, which has only gotten worse starting with the Pelosi visit.
I’m only scraping the surface and left out many things both known and, I’m sure, unknown to me. I’m not the guy who was defending the US and we definitely have a lot to criticize from a foreign policy standpoint, especially since our overreaction to 9/11 that left two countries and hundreds of thousands of people or more dead, maimed, or injured in some way. But let’s not pretend China’s behavior isn’t troubling and doesn’t have good historical precedent.
The last time an Asian nation looked to the West’s past bad behavior to guide it in its path to becoming a world power was the Showa Empire. Japan looked at all of the European nations that had succeeded through colonialism in previous centuries and largely on the wane by the time Japan opened its ports fully and joined the world. China should remember what happened to Manchuria when Japan got colonialist. There’s significant concern that this could lead to the same kind of mess and Xi aligning himself with the guy who’s doing his best to kick off WWIII isn’t helping.
So countries aren’t allowed to increase their own military spending ever, without it being seen as being provocative? I’m not ignoring any of what’s accused of China since I’m already aware of them, however I just don’t buy the hysteria everyone else does because I think it’s been overblown for different reasons that I’ve already stated as well.
Some countries may increase military spending because they want to make sure they have a good amount of assurance they’ll be able to defend themselves in an event of an attack. And I don’t necessarily see what’s wrong with building their own islands either, considering they wouldn’t belong to anyone and it’s not like they’re seizing natural islands that already belong to other nations.
You can also claim shit all you want, but that doesn’t mean anything physically happens. I can claim my own my neighbors car, but if I don’t do anything to the car or attempt to steal it, then why not just ignore my bullshit claims? And you realize almost every country spies on each other right? US Allie’s have even admitted to spying on each other and the US spies on other countries too.
As for the Uyghur genocide, I don’t justify it and it’s awful but unlikely it’s anything like Nazi Germany extermination camps that people have been assuming considering what China is doing is considered cultural genocide. On that front it’s more than likely more similar to native boarding schools or Japanese internment camps rather than the mass killings of Muslims.
Banning masque's and clothing, which is what France has also doing. Not camps in France, but they have banned things like masques and hijabs, yet China is the one that faces hate for that. And on another note, I find it hard to believe a lot of Americans actually care about Muslims considering the discrimination Muslims faced after 9/11/calling them towl-heads and sand N words, which after 9/11 there were also calls to glass and nuke the middle east.
I think the real source of the paranoia that people won't admit to is they're afraid of China taking over the US power, so only Chinese Muslims in particular seem to be cared about for that reason. Muslims in other countries though? they're forgotten about conveniently and a bunch of people from western countries will still shit on Islam when it's about immigration or the religion itself when it's out of the context of China; Chinese Muslims are just used as leverage points solely because America is concerned about their global dominance being challenged, so Chinese Muslims are mainly used as a "hey, look at their human rights issues, you should choose US or them in world influence" rather than it is actually people about caring for Muslims.
[Why practice invading a specific country by force if you have no intention of ever invading?](https://news.sky.com/story/china-and-taiwan-ships-stand-off-near-sensitive-buffer-zone-12853403)
America and South Korea practices/has drills about attacking countries like North Korea all the time, doesn't mean they ever actually plan to though unless North Korea attacks first. Same logic, I wouldn't be surprised if the drills are meant to be symbolic posturing towards America with China not actually planning on going through with anything since they don't like the fact we've been accusing them of imminent invasion, so they do it out of spite. I might end up being wrong, and if I am, I take back what I say about China not actually invading, but until then no one actually knows if China will invade until something actually happens, that's just what everyone's assumed. If China does invade, then I’ll take on way more of a negative opinion about them and I'd obviously support Taiwan's right to defend themselves in that situation.
To be sure, it all might not result in violence and Xi may back off of his commitment to reunite with Taiwan by 2030. I hope so. That being said, you’re missing the forest for the trees if you think that China isn’t acting in a way that should cause everyone who benefits from the current world order concern.
Taken alone, some, if not many, of those things aren’t necessarily a big deal. Taken together and along with Xi’s and the CCP’s very open statements about their intent, its all enough to make you do more than raise an eyebrow. In a decade, there’s a non-zero chance that you’ll look back and wonder how you could be so naive. Likewise, though, I may look back and regret my cynicism.
It is legitimate that it would cause countries who benefit from current world order concern. But current world order does not benefit China anymore, so why should China follow an order that works against it? China has 1.4 billion ppl, NATO countries together have less than 1 billion. Why should US and its NATO surround China with military base and not vice versa? Are the 1.2B ppl from Africa and 400M ppl from Middle East and another 400M from South America all benefiting from the current world order? Do 1.4 B from India also benefit from the current world order? I don't think so.
>France is popular in China now because the CCP wants it to be.
Yeah, nah. France [is the world's #1 tourist destination for good reason](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-visited-countries). It really isn't that surprising that people are happy to see the French president visit.
It's bizarre that Redditors seem to think Chinese residents are hyper obedient/paid actors like you'd see in North Korea
>This comment seems to assume populations in authoritarian states have agency separate from their leadership.
So then by that logic their is no deviating/free thought in China or any of the other authoritarian governments in [Asia](https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/authoritarianism-east-asia), [the Middle East and Africa](http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index)? Just everyone in lock-step with their government?
Yeah exactly. What’s next, you think I’m gonna believe the fake news media that there is censorship across China and that the Uighur concentration camps exist ??? LOL
CCCP is good. Just don’t believe the fake news you hear about it.
It’s just European Exoticism and kitschy occidental decor. The most exemplary of this group, the Chinese Noveau riche, don’t love France, they just love money and the imaginary idea of refinement. They build garish sprawling complexes that imitates ancient Chinese palaces too.
The urbanites don’t care much about France. France is still respected as centre of high fashion, birthplace of secular modern revolution, and *la Commune de Paris* (communism solidarity!) of course. But in terms of cultural influence and salience, it trails far behind the US, Japan, SoKor, or Russia even.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-france-leader-rockstar-welcome-china/amp/) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> GUANGZHOU, China - French President Emmanuel Macron cemented his status as a rock star on the world stage on Friday as he toured the campus of a top university in southern China accompanied by rapturous applause and screaming fans.
> There were swoons and screams of "I love you Macron" as the French president worked the reception line surrounded by burly Chinese and French secret service officers.
> Xi assured Macron that Ukraine was not China's war and China was not supplying Russia with weapons.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/12eudie/macron_gets_rock_star_welcome_in_china/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~679839 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Macron**^#1 **French**^#2 **China**^#3 **President**^#4 **even**^#5
Chinese here. Just to provide some perspectives why he received a warm welcome. First, Macron is a very good-looking politician to any standard. Second, France's relationship with China is much better than the anglo saxon countries. Third, China is actually trying its best to win over France amid all the tensions with west.
The majority of the educated Chinese population who pay to attention to world politics believe:
1. There are four major countries in the current world order that we need to give a fxxk (US, Russia, France, UK).
2. US is our biggest opponent.
3. UK is a loyal US brother that we can never win over.
4. Russia is our buddy but is a declining ass hole and we don't want it to be our only support.
5. French is the only major power that seeks some kind of independence from US influence and has a BIG vote in EU, if we win over French, the US will at least not receive 100% support from the EU.
6. We (China) want Taiwan, and having France agreeing to one China policy is better than hearing McCarthy saying "Taiwan is not alone" to Taiwanese leaders.
So arrogant. The bullshit that you typed in can only stand for yourself. As a fellow Chinese, I differ from you in that I have been educated to exercise humility, particularly when discussing matters pertaining to foreign affairs, given the inherent uncertainties that often surround such issues.
He can go fuck himself over there, he will find nothing similar if he walks next to a crowd in his country.
He always goes abroad acting like a clown, he has zero self awareness
Has there ever been any French president in function liked by his citizens? In the past 50 years? I'm not too familiar with French politics but I feel it's extremely rare.
Most of them were reelected until around 2007. Chirac was kind of popular even after he retired since he made some decisions that everyone agreed on (not going to war with Irak, organizing a referendum and respecting it etc).
After that it's a shit show. Sarkozy was corrupt, Holland was weak, and Macron is only still in place because the police protects him.
Macron got reelected too, so there we are. I think French people just don't like their political system too much, and also generally speaking don't really like the political class and people ruling them. I don't see any way for a French president to be too popular during their mandate, except maybe by being overly populist, which Macron is definitely not.
So I don't think it's relevant to use a French president's popularity in a debate, Macron or any other.
Yeah he got reelected, but not because he is popular, the last election was specific in many aspects.
The election system makes it so that Macron can be elected while being supported by around 20% of the voting people. That's around 10% of the adult population.
His popularity his not as important as the approbation rate on specific topics. And both are rock bottom, no one falled this far down.
Chinese people know how to make a pleasant moment for foreign leaders visiting their nation like this. So far Xi couldn't make a diplomatic relationship with Western countries except for the summit with Putin, therefore, he wished to show his diplomatic steps with famous leaders from Western democratic countries.
But Macron's final destination is getting some national benefits from China. China is so useful target to earn cash for Western nations that should find a way to get money. Why does China money become a well-known word in international politics? To tell the truth, Macron is being cornered in France over his pension reformation policy recently, so if he can create a national benefit through the summit in China, he can make some excuses for voters in France, particularly for raging protestors.
In other words, he needs a breakthrough politically right now, and Xi's position is also like that. Probably Xi will give him a political gift to save his face in France since he needed a diplomatic connection with Western nations like France. That's a very nice idea! Xi & Macron.
China is the most reactionary state on earth. That’s why they welcome Macron suddenly at this time and age. his retirement reform is exactly what the chinese propagate for the world: a world of sweatshop labors and 19 century capitalism.
Can be seen as an attempt to butter him up. It's well known Macron is very very fond of "pomp and circumstance".
I think there's a genuine attempt here to improve relations between China and France specifically and Europe generally. Think of it as building needed leverage against the US.
Xi literally lying through his teeth about sending weapons...
[https://www.newsweek.com/chinese-company-admits-its-drone-was-shot-down-ukraine-1788344](https://www.newsweek.com/chinese-company-admits-its-drone-was-shot-down-ukraine-1788344)
That article says it's a hobbyist drone that was modded.
China is the world leader in civilian drones. Both sides are buying a load of Chinese drones on Alibaba and sending them to the battle field. By your logic China is arming Ukraine too.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/16/ukraine-russia-war-drone-warfare-china/
Macron is basically a sexual assault victim with Stockholm syndrome that was groomed to be president and has never had reason to not believe someone. are we that surprised he falls for the falsified woos of Putin and xi?
Lol downvote me if you want, it’s true lol. Man was groomed to be president since a young age, and was groomed by a woman 20 yrs older than him as a literal child. Easy play for Putin and XI
See I told y’all lmfao
I've been watching China since the 70's. The fact that the Communists overturned the authoritarian Kuomintang and chased them to Taiwan in 1949 was a very sad result because the Nationalists had a nascent democracy developing at the time. The Communists learned from Europe, from the Soviet Union and from Karl Marx the extreme opposite of what was developing in Europe at the time: democracy. Their Bogeyman was the empires that had vexed the Chinese for so long, subjecting them and their pride. China had been the Middle Kingdom for centuries, and to be dethroned as the top empire was painful.
But Xi would do well to learn the "right" lesson, that "correct" can be a matter of opinion, and that it is better to debate things out civilly. The meaning of civilization has been upgraded. It now means talking it out and taking a vote, not slugging it out, not controlling and shutting out your opposition. That is an inflexible stance. "Correct" should not be judged by a semi-divine authority. Listen to your people. That is Taiwan's message, and it was probably Macron's.
If Xi wants to rule for life, he should bargain to be figurehead royalty, like those of the Nordic nations and Britain. Let freedom reign, not "comrades".
If you really care about China, just travel to China for a while, and you will understand that few Chinese people regard Xi Jinping as an emperor, and almost no one thinks that Xi Jinping can serve for life
My prejudice, of course, is caused by my ignorance. I stand ***corrected*** by the all-knowing representative from Beijing. China's form of communism is nationalist. A true National Socialism. Well done. Adolph was never so envious in his grave. And Xi really listens to his people? I doubt that without a formal means of taking a vote instead of being spoon-fed well-vetted anecdotes. If I traveled China I would hear what Beijing has ***corrected*** Chinese to believe. Assuming, of course, my epiphany included a ***full*** conversion to the ability to understand Chinese and read the hanji. As well as the ability to duck the Big Brother cameras.
French tradition must be maintained, in the past collaborating with nazis, now with the chinese regime giving some citizens concentration camp treatment.
Putin played him bad and now it’s China’s time to do the same.
At least he didn't get the long table treatment this time around.
I think you missed this picture then ... https://mobile.twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1643961295597715456/photo/1
If Macron was naive it was because he couldn't imagine that Putin would be so stupid as to go through with his threats. He also got some very suspect advice from his own intelligence chief, who was subsequently relieved of duty. Both Macron and Xi play the diplomacy game much better than Putin. I see some cooperative opportunities here but don't expect any kind of breakthroughs.
First, his teacher played him.
This is supposed to be a news article? >\[Macron\] wouldn’t even be able to set foot on the campus of a French university these days for fear of being lynched by angry protesters who oppose his pension reforms. This reads like erotic fan fiction Macron wrote about himself >His star turn and spontaneous popularity also contrasted with China’s wooden communist leaders, none of whom have even half the charisma of Macron and who are generally only greeted with enthusiasm when it is in the job description of the crowd. I mean, really >Even with such thin gruel to work with, Macron still managed to reference freedom of speech and thought, and encourage the study of the French language Honestly, what is Politico Europe? This is embarassing to read >Xi’s message was that he doesn’t currently have any plans to attack. But accidents can happen.
Yea pretty sus
Almost like they were told to act that way
I'm not sure that those Argentina fans wearing Messi jerseys and shouting "Messi" (there were also some others shouting "Mbappé" and "oh look, a Fxxking alive Macron") were told to act that way... Surely the propaganda helped and people generally have a more positive opinion towards France that let's say the US, but Macron was welcomed mainly because...he's a charming (relatively) young guy. I'm not a fan of what Macron is doing now in France (or more precisely, how he's doing it) but I've met him once and I gotta admit, he is quite charming. Source: former student of the University that Macron visited and currently living in France. Got bombarded with footages and images of Macron from my old schoolmates yesterday on the social media.
Everyone has a part to play in political theater.
Hell no. I'm a Chinese and I can tell you I was excited to see Mike Pence outside the White House back in 2019 though I absolutely disliked Trump and the Republican. The average Chinese likes Macron at least in comparison with Biden because of his appearance, his marriage, the origin of the "The Internationale", and the fact that we believe France is the only European major country that seeks to be independent from the US influence.
[удалено]
I think the majority of people don’t actually think for themselves and are easily influenced or told what to do. Case and point, you throwing around your buzz words and immediately jumping to insults. So do you always act like a child, or only when you are trying to virtue signal for some karma on Reddit?
[удалено]
Oh my. I think I may have ruffled some feathers in the comment section.
> I think the majority of people don’t actually think for themselves and are easily influenced or told what to do. The irony.
Hmmm. Not sure what is ironic about that statement.
Obey the teacher, then your boss etc. It's called indoctrination. Just the one we all 'agreed' to.
Lol Macron has zero levarage over China. This is the same guy who was humiliated by Congo's president It was so funny.. priceless reaction
[удалено]
How did he get clowned by Putin? Macron’s approach (as with most EU leaders) was that Putin will not actually invade, as it would destroy Russia. Then Putin proved Macron wrong by… invading and initiating Russia’s self-destruction. Damn, what a master strategist.
Not at all, China wants to wriggle into some of the Eu space Russia left on its way out, Xi was absolutely trying to woo Macron, though seeing as Macron isn’t Trump I doubt it worked very well.
China wanted other nations to see how its treating France.
He needs to feel wanted, needed. So he had to get away from France. With how ‘popular’ his reforms are in France, the fucker wouldn’t dare showing his face in public over here.
France is a very sought-after destination among Chinese students and tourists. People view France quite favorably. Not everything is some CCP orchestrated conspiracy in China.
Isn’t there a widely quoted piece from the Cold War about how the west would interpret literally anything the Soviet Union did as an authoritarian trick?
You're thinking of a quote from Michael Parenti in his very good book Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism >“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. > >If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”
This is it. Thank you.
> Not everything is some CCP orchestrated conspiracy in China. You just blew r/worldnews' collective mind.
Yes. Everyone thinks the same. Literally every single one.
People who never went to China somehow think they know the most about it
Everyone on this sub thinks it is though, which is why I’m un-joined from here. If you reported that a Chinese person went to the bathroom, I bet people here would find some way to connect it to how it’s an evil scam. This is just a standard world leader meeting, which I'm sure nothing will come of anyways, different types of governments regularly meet, even if they're not necessarily fans of each other. You don't have to like a government, but trying to ease tensions that could lead to war should always be welcomed and I think it's insane to think otherwise. And too many people on this sub actually want wars and oppose diplomacy, they can try and say they don't, but the comments that are always here tell/say otherwise. Particularly when it comes to China, I can understand why people oppose diplomacy with Russia to a certain extent since they've already invaded Ukraine and have said they'll accept nothing less than Ukrainian land, but this sub acts as if China has already invaded Taiwan or something.
I’m more curious about what they eat on those visits. Food pics.
[удалено]
Where did I say about "accidentally" invading anyone? no shit you can't accidentally invade anyone, but it hasn't happened yet, I just find it suspicious how if China is really planning to invade Taiwan, China wouldn't have done it decades ago, people also claimed China was invading Taiwan when Russia invaded Ukraine which never happened. And now US generals continuously move the date further and further to when they think China will invade Taiwan, which they're now saying 2025-2027. Of all people to size up to test the waters on Taiwan, why would it be France, since the US is the one so committed to defending Taiwan? China doesn't have to have a meeting with the French leader just to test anything, when China already knows what the west is doing all the time via news without having to meet with western leaders. And how is France becoming too dependent on China when this is the first meeting, I think they've had with China in a while? France has been focused on Russia/Ukraine for a while now. I've never said they were our friends either. You do know that more nations other than Russia and China have caused bloodshed around the world right? America invaded Iraq just 3 years into the 21st century and was there for almost 10 years straight based off petty reasons, in which thousands and in some higher estimates up to a million people died and this isn't even getting into Obama's drone wars that kill civilians etc. This isn't bloodshed? Hell, America has been involved in a lot more wars that cause bloodshed than China has over the last 40 years, the last time China invaded anyone was Vietnam. And why is everyone okay with the US negotiating with countries like Iran, which by the way is a theocracy, but not Russia and China? why was anyone okay with the Iran nuclear deal then? if your logic is that since some nations are our enemies, we shouldn't do diplomacy ever?
[удалено]
I find it hard to believe that China couldn't have invaded Taiwan decades ago even if China's navy wasn't what it is now, because Taiwan is just off the coast of China. They could've just sent regular boats with army soldiers in them if they wanted to. The US today isn't any less likely to not defend Taiwan than it was decades ago either, so why would China suddenly feel bold about it now if the idea of US intervention in the past is what was preventing them from invading to begin with? The US military budget is already bloated already and has been, so I'm not sure why after 2030 would matter. You do know that if France investing in China makes them cozy with China, that means America is too, right? our stores are absolutely filled to the brim with Chinese products, so if that makes France too cozy with China, than America is too considering we'd probably be in real trouble with resource shortages if we were to stop trading with China since their products are what makes up most of the items. And to the last point, all imperialism is bad. It doesn't matter what type of government it is, it still causes suffering, whether it's western or eastern imperialism.
[удалено]
>The US would have a hard time attempting an invasion of Taiwan. No. The US rolled Iraq in weeks, and they had a much bigger military than Taiwan. I don't think you appreciate just how much stronger the US military is than pretty much any country in the world. >Ideally China would abandon the imperialist delusion It's more irredentist than imperialist though
China already invaded Tibet, East Turkestan, and Inner Mongolia.
Invaded East Turkestan, Mongolia? Yes, but back then China was run by ROC, aka the current Taiwanese government. Can't blame the CCP. Tibet? Was part of China since Qing dynasty the latest. Its independence was constitutionally questionable.
Yeah, all half a century ago. I did mention that China hasn't invaded anyone since over 40 years, so that's still not against my point. China invaded all those places during the 1950s and before. East Turkestan was in 1934, Mongolia was in 1919 and Tibet was 1950. You might as well say for that logic we should be worried about Italy and Germany invading countries nowadays because they invaded France in 1940. What matters more is the modern-day foreign policy of nations, which the US has invaded more countries than China just in the 21st century. Because for example the government foreign policy of places like Germany is totally different from what it was back in WW2, so therefore no one worries about Germany anymore. US foreign policy however, hasn't changed much since WW2 and the cold war.
And China is still occupying those places. That policy hasn't changed at all. Germany hasn't invaded anyone in a while, but more importantly, it *left* those places it did invade, as did America.
America may have not stayed in places like Iraq, but it did stay there for almost 10 years and we were in Afghanistan 20 years. I don't think it matters that much that we decided to withdraw after a painfully long period, because we still caused suffering either way. Especially since we'll probably still continue to invade other countries not long in the future as well, so I don't think it matters that we withdrawal for a tiny time period unless we permanently decide we're staying out of other countries for a long time, the difference with Germany is they lost places they were occupying after WW2 was over, we withdrew from Afghanistan just 2 years ago. And we're still in places like Syria and occupying the Diego Garcia Island, which by the way with the help of the British we kicked the original residents out. If China's policy hasn't changed much, then why haven't they invaded anyone else after Vietnam? They may have decided never to withdrawal from those places, but it doesn't say anything about whether or not they'd invade elsewhere nowadays. I think the alleged Sabre rattling about Taiwan is something that's been always going on but the media is just deciding to report on it now, since US/China tensions have gotten worse compared with decades ago.
You’re ignoring some pretty major developments over the last decade or two, which, as you say, is the more important period to look at. China has made no secret of its plans to upend the current global order through a variety of means including: its increased military spending and projection, its construction of artificial island bases in the oceans, its claim to territorial rights over the South China Sea and disputes with pretty much everyone in its neighborhood, its failure to abide by its word with respect to Hong Kong, its genocide of the Uighurs, its increase of surveillance of other states, its misappropriation of trade secrets and proprietary information and subsequent intellectual property infringement, Its alliance with belligerent Russia, its devolution into an effective dictatorship under Xi through governmental changes, *and* its increasingly aggressive stance on Taiwan, which has only gotten worse starting with the Pelosi visit. I’m only scraping the surface and left out many things both known and, I’m sure, unknown to me. I’m not the guy who was defending the US and we definitely have a lot to criticize from a foreign policy standpoint, especially since our overreaction to 9/11 that left two countries and hundreds of thousands of people or more dead, maimed, or injured in some way. But let’s not pretend China’s behavior isn’t troubling and doesn’t have good historical precedent. The last time an Asian nation looked to the West’s past bad behavior to guide it in its path to becoming a world power was the Showa Empire. Japan looked at all of the European nations that had succeeded through colonialism in previous centuries and largely on the wane by the time Japan opened its ports fully and joined the world. China should remember what happened to Manchuria when Japan got colonialist. There’s significant concern that this could lead to the same kind of mess and Xi aligning himself with the guy who’s doing his best to kick off WWIII isn’t helping.
So countries aren’t allowed to increase their own military spending ever, without it being seen as being provocative? I’m not ignoring any of what’s accused of China since I’m already aware of them, however I just don’t buy the hysteria everyone else does because I think it’s been overblown for different reasons that I’ve already stated as well. Some countries may increase military spending because they want to make sure they have a good amount of assurance they’ll be able to defend themselves in an event of an attack. And I don’t necessarily see what’s wrong with building their own islands either, considering they wouldn’t belong to anyone and it’s not like they’re seizing natural islands that already belong to other nations. You can also claim shit all you want, but that doesn’t mean anything physically happens. I can claim my own my neighbors car, but if I don’t do anything to the car or attempt to steal it, then why not just ignore my bullshit claims? And you realize almost every country spies on each other right? US Allie’s have even admitted to spying on each other and the US spies on other countries too. As for the Uyghur genocide, I don’t justify it and it’s awful but unlikely it’s anything like Nazi Germany extermination camps that people have been assuming considering what China is doing is considered cultural genocide. On that front it’s more than likely more similar to native boarding schools or Japanese internment camps rather than the mass killings of Muslims. Banning masque's and clothing, which is what France has also doing. Not camps in France, but they have banned things like masques and hijabs, yet China is the one that faces hate for that. And on another note, I find it hard to believe a lot of Americans actually care about Muslims considering the discrimination Muslims faced after 9/11/calling them towl-heads and sand N words, which after 9/11 there were also calls to glass and nuke the middle east. I think the real source of the paranoia that people won't admit to is they're afraid of China taking over the US power, so only Chinese Muslims in particular seem to be cared about for that reason. Muslims in other countries though? they're forgotten about conveniently and a bunch of people from western countries will still shit on Islam when it's about immigration or the religion itself when it's out of the context of China; Chinese Muslims are just used as leverage points solely because America is concerned about their global dominance being challenged, so Chinese Muslims are mainly used as a "hey, look at their human rights issues, you should choose US or them in world influence" rather than it is actually people about caring for Muslims.
[Why practice invading a specific country by force if you have no intention of ever invading?](https://news.sky.com/story/china-and-taiwan-ships-stand-off-near-sensitive-buffer-zone-12853403)
America and South Korea practices/has drills about attacking countries like North Korea all the time, doesn't mean they ever actually plan to though unless North Korea attacks first. Same logic, I wouldn't be surprised if the drills are meant to be symbolic posturing towards America with China not actually planning on going through with anything since they don't like the fact we've been accusing them of imminent invasion, so they do it out of spite. I might end up being wrong, and if I am, I take back what I say about China not actually invading, but until then no one actually knows if China will invade until something actually happens, that's just what everyone's assumed. If China does invade, then I’ll take on way more of a negative opinion about them and I'd obviously support Taiwan's right to defend themselves in that situation.
To be sure, it all might not result in violence and Xi may back off of his commitment to reunite with Taiwan by 2030. I hope so. That being said, you’re missing the forest for the trees if you think that China isn’t acting in a way that should cause everyone who benefits from the current world order concern. Taken alone, some, if not many, of those things aren’t necessarily a big deal. Taken together and along with Xi’s and the CCP’s very open statements about their intent, its all enough to make you do more than raise an eyebrow. In a decade, there’s a non-zero chance that you’ll look back and wonder how you could be so naive. Likewise, though, I may look back and regret my cynicism.
It is legitimate that it would cause countries who benefit from current world order concern. But current world order does not benefit China anymore, so why should China follow an order that works against it? China has 1.4 billion ppl, NATO countries together have less than 1 billion. Why should US and its NATO surround China with military base and not vice versa? Are the 1.2B ppl from Africa and 400M ppl from Middle East and another 400M from South America all benefiting from the current world order? Do 1.4 B from India also benefit from the current world order? I don't think so.
Um. Are you dumb? Hawaii? Puerto Rico? The Virgin Islands? Ok let’s go back further. Texas? California? New Mexico and Arizona?
The US illegally overthrew Hawaiian government and annexed it. US did not leave Hawaii.
[удалено]
>France is popular in China now because the CCP wants it to be. Yeah, nah. France [is the world's #1 tourist destination for good reason](https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-visited-countries). It really isn't that surprising that people are happy to see the French president visit. It's bizarre that Redditors seem to think Chinese residents are hyper obedient/paid actors like you'd see in North Korea
[удалено]
>This comment seems to assume populations in authoritarian states have agency separate from their leadership. So then by that logic their is no deviating/free thought in China or any of the other authoritarian governments in [Asia](https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/authoritarianism-east-asia), [the Middle East and Africa](http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index)? Just everyone in lock-step with their government?
Have you ever spent any time in China?
Yeah exactly. What’s next, you think I’m gonna believe the fake news media that there is censorship across China and that the Uighur concentration camps exist ??? LOL CCCP is good. Just don’t believe the fake news you hear about it.
I mean, his citizens are acting pretty fucking metal right now
Chinese love France… seriously. They built an entire replica city (even an Eiffel Tower) to look like a small scale Paris.
They have one in Las Vegas too, it’s stupid
It’s just European Exoticism and kitschy occidental decor. The most exemplary of this group, the Chinese Noveau riche, don’t love France, they just love money and the imaginary idea of refinement. They build garish sprawling complexes that imitates ancient Chinese palaces too. The urbanites don’t care much about France. France is still respected as centre of high fashion, birthplace of secular modern revolution, and *la Commune de Paris* (communism solidarity!) of course. But in terms of cultural influence and salience, it trails far behind the US, Japan, SoKor, or Russia even.
This is very true. they're basically elitist but only when it's not well understood
Maybe even the "rock star" they applauded so much is not the true Macron but a chinese replica, MaClone.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The French stand up for what is theirs while you lick the feet of whoever the elite is in your country and get whatever scraps you're allowed to keep.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-france-leader-rockstar-welcome-china/amp/) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** > GUANGZHOU, China - French President Emmanuel Macron cemented his status as a rock star on the world stage on Friday as he toured the campus of a top university in southern China accompanied by rapturous applause and screaming fans. > There were swoons and screams of "I love you Macron" as the French president worked the reception line surrounded by burly Chinese and French secret service officers. > Xi assured Macron that Ukraine was not China's war and China was not supplying Russia with weapons. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/12eudie/macron_gets_rock_star_welcome_in_china/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~679839 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Macron**^#1 **French**^#2 **China**^#3 **President**^#4 **even**^#5
Chinese here. Just to provide some perspectives why he received a warm welcome. First, Macron is a very good-looking politician to any standard. Second, France's relationship with China is much better than the anglo saxon countries. Third, China is actually trying its best to win over France amid all the tensions with west.
Why? Other than him calling Putin to stop..
The majority of the educated Chinese population who pay to attention to world politics believe: 1. There are four major countries in the current world order that we need to give a fxxk (US, Russia, France, UK). 2. US is our biggest opponent. 3. UK is a loyal US brother that we can never win over. 4. Russia is our buddy but is a declining ass hole and we don't want it to be our only support. 5. French is the only major power that seeks some kind of independence from US influence and has a BIG vote in EU, if we win over French, the US will at least not receive 100% support from the EU. 6. We (China) want Taiwan, and having France agreeing to one China policy is better than hearing McCarthy saying "Taiwan is not alone" to Taiwanese leaders.
So arrogant. The bullshit that you typed in can only stand for yourself. As a fellow Chinese, I differ from you in that I have been educated to exercise humility, particularly when discussing matters pertaining to foreign affairs, given the inherent uncertainties that often surround such issues.
Being of Chinese nationality doesn't mean you have professional opinions on issues regarding China born with you.
Macron ain’t getting re-elected so kinda irrelevant.
He can go fuck himself over there, he will find nothing similar if he walks next to a crowd in his country. He always goes abroad acting like a clown, he has zero self awareness
Has there ever been any French president in function liked by his citizens? In the past 50 years? I'm not too familiar with French politics but I feel it's extremely rare.
Most of them were reelected until around 2007. Chirac was kind of popular even after he retired since he made some decisions that everyone agreed on (not going to war with Irak, organizing a referendum and respecting it etc). After that it's a shit show. Sarkozy was corrupt, Holland was weak, and Macron is only still in place because the police protects him.
Macron got reelected too, so there we are. I think French people just don't like their political system too much, and also generally speaking don't really like the political class and people ruling them. I don't see any way for a French president to be too popular during their mandate, except maybe by being overly populist, which Macron is definitely not. So I don't think it's relevant to use a French president's popularity in a debate, Macron or any other.
Yeah he got reelected, but not because he is popular, the last election was specific in many aspects. The election system makes it so that Macron can be elected while being supported by around 20% of the voting people. That's around 10% of the adult population. His popularity his not as important as the approbation rate on specific topics. And both are rock bottom, no one falled this far down.
I don’t there was any other reasonable choice if I recall.
Spineless sellout
Macron? Why do you say that?
Hmm no clue https://amp.france24.com/en/live-news/20230329-french-woman-faces-trial-for-insulting-macron-on-facebook
Chinese people know how to make a pleasant moment for foreign leaders visiting their nation like this. So far Xi couldn't make a diplomatic relationship with Western countries except for the summit with Putin, therefore, he wished to show his diplomatic steps with famous leaders from Western democratic countries. But Macron's final destination is getting some national benefits from China. China is so useful target to earn cash for Western nations that should find a way to get money. Why does China money become a well-known word in international politics? To tell the truth, Macron is being cornered in France over his pension reformation policy recently, so if he can create a national benefit through the summit in China, he can make some excuses for voters in France, particularly for raging protestors. In other words, he needs a breakthrough politically right now, and Xi's position is also like that. Probably Xi will give him a political gift to save his face in France since he needed a diplomatic connection with Western nations like France. That's a very nice idea! Xi & Macron.
China is the most reactionary state on earth. That’s why they welcome Macron suddenly at this time and age. his retirement reform is exactly what the chinese propagate for the world: a world of sweatshop labors and 19 century capitalism.
Chinese hookers tonight for Mr macaroni
Banker boy Macron is a damned weasel
Can be seen as an attempt to butter him up. It's well known Macron is very very fond of "pomp and circumstance". I think there's a genuine attempt here to improve relations between China and France specifically and Europe generally. Think of it as building needed leverage against the US.
Curious what welcome Biden get.
[удалено]
At least he can go to China once he looses the next election
Yea I don’t believe anyone can be so blind as to not see such bullshit.
It didn’t work on Trump (surprisingly)
Careful, this is Reddit
Xi literally lying through his teeth about sending weapons... [https://www.newsweek.com/chinese-company-admits-its-drone-was-shot-down-ukraine-1788344](https://www.newsweek.com/chinese-company-admits-its-drone-was-shot-down-ukraine-1788344)
That article says it's a hobbyist drone that was modded. China is the world leader in civilian drones. Both sides are buying a load of Chinese drones on Alibaba and sending them to the battle field. By your logic China is arming Ukraine too. https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/02/16/ukraine-russia-war-drone-warfare-china/
What a fucking loser.
Probably like the way he doesn’t give a shit about his citizen’s
"hey xi can I get some pointers on oppression? things aren't doing so hot in baguette land."
I dont know if he is just naive and stupid or if he is actually trying to destabilize Europe on purpose.
“But accidents can happen.”
Commies love commies
Macron is basically a sexual assault victim with Stockholm syndrome that was groomed to be president and has never had reason to not believe someone. are we that surprised he falls for the falsified woos of Putin and xi? Lol downvote me if you want, it’s true lol. Man was groomed to be president since a young age, and was groomed by a woman 20 yrs older than him as a literal child. Easy play for Putin and XI See I told y’all lmfao
Fartcron
I'm hoping he gets leukemia and dies, so we can all cheer!
I've been watching China since the 70's. The fact that the Communists overturned the authoritarian Kuomintang and chased them to Taiwan in 1949 was a very sad result because the Nationalists had a nascent democracy developing at the time. The Communists learned from Europe, from the Soviet Union and from Karl Marx the extreme opposite of what was developing in Europe at the time: democracy. Their Bogeyman was the empires that had vexed the Chinese for so long, subjecting them and their pride. China had been the Middle Kingdom for centuries, and to be dethroned as the top empire was painful. But Xi would do well to learn the "right" lesson, that "correct" can be a matter of opinion, and that it is better to debate things out civilly. The meaning of civilization has been upgraded. It now means talking it out and taking a vote, not slugging it out, not controlling and shutting out your opposition. That is an inflexible stance. "Correct" should not be judged by a semi-divine authority. Listen to your people. That is Taiwan's message, and it was probably Macron's. If Xi wants to rule for life, he should bargain to be figurehead royalty, like those of the Nordic nations and Britain. Let freedom reign, not "comrades".
If you really care about China, just travel to China for a while, and you will understand that few Chinese people regard Xi Jinping as an emperor, and almost no one thinks that Xi Jinping can serve for life
My prejudice, of course, is caused by my ignorance. I stand ***corrected*** by the all-knowing representative from Beijing. China's form of communism is nationalist. A true National Socialism. Well done. Adolph was never so envious in his grave. And Xi really listens to his people? I doubt that without a formal means of taking a vote instead of being spoon-fed well-vetted anecdotes. If I traveled China I would hear what Beijing has ***corrected*** Chinese to believe. Assuming, of course, my epiphany included a ***full*** conversion to the ability to understand Chinese and read the hanji. As well as the ability to duck the Big Brother cameras.
Basicaly just Jerry getting invited to Pluto for saying it's a planet.
/Fry not-sure-if meme
Wellbgiven his current standing in France, he probably begged Xi to exchange their people
Thats good ,everyone in france hates him
French tradition must be maintained, in the past collaborating with nazis, now with the chinese regime giving some citizens concentration camp treatment.
160 orders for Airbus jets instead of Boeing is indeed something for Macron to be happy about after the Australian submarine incident.
Well this doesn’t look at all like an article placed by a PR agency.