Johnson Choi reports from San Francisco on 2-26-25 video: What is the real meaning of freedom of navigation by the Americans? 蔡永強 2/26/25 在舊金山報導視頻: 什麼是美國的所謂航行自由假議題? 祇有腦殘的人才會相信! 但九成美國人相信，這個國家已經沒有希望了!
https://rumble.com/v6ps62r-what-is-the-real-meaning-of-freedom-of-navigation-by-the-americans.html
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8YTPkkt/
https://youtu.be/W5pMypTDYUA?si=f_c4HyfP4oWR1xHD
UN video: Fu Cong, China’s Permanent Representative to the UN Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, gave the most domineering, passionate and complete speech of China🇨🇳 at the UN meeting for the first time, pointed out when the former US President Obama said that US cannot let the Chinese people live as well as the Americans, his idiotic remarks are short-sighted and naive· 聯合國視頻：中國常驻联合国代表、特命全权大使傅聪是在聯合國會議上第一次最霸氣最熱血澎湃的最完整的中國🇨🇳最強者演講，尤其是針對像前美國總統歐巴馬說美國不能讓中國人活得和美國人一樣好的腦殘言論是目光短淺又天真.
https://rumble.com/v6pptcr-fu-cong-chinas-permanent-representative-to-the-un.html
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8Y3qpn3/
https://youtu.be/qLmRfTJmIWk?si=9XDt-stZUKss9sqQ
Australia Lost Its Balls to Chinese Navy. Freedom of navigation is a good thing, but you can’t just defend it when your own warships are parked at someone else’s doorstep, right? This weekend, the Chinese navy kindly raised this issue with Australia and received a satisfactory response. At least, their official reply was quite satisfying to the Chinese. 澳洲輸給了中國海軍。航行自由是好事，但不能把自己的軍艦停在別人家門口就去捍衛它吧？本週末，中國海軍向澳洲善意地提出了這個問題，並得到了滿意的回應。至少，他們的官方答覆讓中國人還是滿意的. Feb 26 2025
On February 21 and 22, the Chinese Navy conducted two live-fire exercises in the international waters between Australia and New Zealand.
By Western standards, military drills in international waters with prior notices are not just normal, but essential for safeguarding freedom of navigation, but they seem to have a problem when it was China who tries to have a shot at the noble task.
For instance, U.S. news agency Associated Press News falsely claimed that airliners were warned of flying over a “secret live-fire exercise.”
In contrast, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that the Australian military detected the ships a week before the exercise and that China had issued safety warnings in advance to Australian airlines including Qantas, Jetstar. These details are available to the public and not hidden behind any paywall.
Moreover, the Chinese Navy’s planned exercise was communicated through radio broadcasts, meaning anyone with access to a radio—whether fishermen, pilots, or divers—could receive the notice. It’s baffling how AP News can call it “secret.”
What’s even more perplexing is the reaction from certain Australian politicians. Shadow Minister for Defense Andrew Hastie labeled the Chinese military exercise as a “provocation.” Meanwhile, Andrew Wallace, the deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, pointed out the hypocrisy of Australia criticizing China’s actions while conducting its own military operations far from its shores.
For those at AP News who may have missed this “secret,” on February 7, warships from the U.S., the Philippines, Japan, and Australia participated in a joint maritime exercise in the South China Sea. On February 11, an Australian military aircraft entered Chinese airspace over the Xisha Islands without permission. As Wallace put it, “We can’t talk about freedom of navigation in the South China Sea and then criticize China over an exercise like this. They haven’t done anything wrong.”
Interestingly, Hastie also accused Beijing of using “gunboat diplomacy” to test U.S. allies like Australia. It’s a curious statement, considering that while Australia has tried hard to prove its loyalty to the United States, the U.S. has never truly regarded Australia as an equal ally.
Australia, a member of AUKUS, an alliance built on a contract of dealing second-hand nuclear submarines. To obtain three U.S. Virginia-class submarines, Australia will spend a staggering $368 billion. But despite Australia’s lofty expectations, a report published by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in January, titled An Analysis of the Navy’s 2025 Shipbuilding Plan, states that the larger Columbia class SSBNs are US Navy’s “highest acquisition priority”, and “the sale of SSNs to Australia could reduce the number of attack submarines available to the Navy.” Which translates as “we’re busy, don’t come bother us, just wait.”
Australian Greens Senator David Shoebridge called the report “damning,” arguing it further demonstrates that Australia’s nuclear-submarine plans are unraveling. Even though Australia has already invested about $3 billion in the first 4 years, the U.S. shipbuilding industry is nowhere near producing enough nuclear submarines to meet demand, with no clear solution in sight.
Buying submarine is not ordering Panda Express, and it’s hard to find an alternative supplier, especially after they tore up the contract with France in 2021.
On February 22, Australian PM Anthony Albanese reiterated that China had adhered to international law, emphasizing that no Australian assets were in danger. Defense Minister Richard Marles also clarified that Chinese ships did not enter Australia’s territorial waters.
New Zealand PM Christopher Luxon also said on February 24 that “there is nothing illegal here in terms of they are compliant with international law,” See? That $3 billion was not completely wasted. At least they learned a valuable lesson: America’s promises are unreliable, so behave yourself.
Johnson Choi reports on 2-25-25 from SF video: Nezha 2 broke box office records in HK. What is fair? what is a scam by US in the name of democracy? 蔡永強在2月25日在舊金山直播: 哪吒2在香港破票房紀錄，香港華記好樣的，包塲請客人和網友免費看片，誰發動俄烏戰爭? 真的是俄羅斯嗎? 美俄中站同邊 安理會不譴俄! 德國變天，什麼是公平，什麼是美國民主騙局?
https://youtu.be/D6Yu9xpXy3E?si=tUT7MjBY201Gwa_8
https://rumble.com/v6paopo-nezha-2-broke-box-office-records-in-hk.-what-is-fair-what-is-a-scam-by-us.html
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8YcLa96/
Video: China’s human rights don’t need anyone else to tell them what to do! Bearing in mind the original aspiration and mission, safeguarding fairness and justice, and insisting on exchanges and mutual learning, this is China’s position mentioned by Wang Yi in his speech at the 58th High-level Meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council 中国人权不需要别人指手画脚！铭记初心使命、维护公平正义、坚持交流互鉴，这是王毅在联合国人权理事会第58届高级别会议致辞时提到的中国立场
https://rumble.com/v6oztu0-chinas-human-rights-dont-need-anyone-else-to-tell-them-what-to-do.html
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8YvMc9p/
https://youtu.be/8i_RShz3ql0?si=E4-8nJdvrYDa11fg
中共中央政治局委员、外交部长王毅24日以视频方式向联合国人权理事会第58届会议高级别会议发表致辞。
王毅表示，习近平主席提出构建人类命运共同体重大理念和全球发展、安全、文明倡议，向世界贡献了中国方案。习近平主席指出，促进和保护人权是全人类的事业，需要大家共同努力。我们愿同各国一道，坚持正确人权观，推动改革和完善全球人权治理。
一要铭记初心使命。要坚持以人民为中心，实现发展为了人民、发展依靠人民、发展成果由人民共享。要对以人权为借口干涉他国内政，置国家主权、安全和老百姓生命安危于不顾的言行坚决说不。
二要维护公平正义。要将生存权和发展权作为首要基本人权，在维护国家主权、安全和尊严的前提下，统筹兼顾个人权利和集体权利，协调增进政治、经济、社会、文化、环境、教育等各项权利。要对在人权问题上搞双重标准甚至多重标准的言行坚决说不。
三要坚持交流互鉴。要践行真正的多边主义，在平等和相互尊重基础上开展建设性的对话合作，推动建设公正合理包容的全球人权治理体系。要对将自身模式和好恶强加于人，将人权政治化、工具化、武器化的言行坚决说不。
王毅强调，中国将以人类前途为怀、以各国福祉为念，以更加积极有为的姿态参与国际人权合作，与各方共同开创全球人权事业美好的未来
Video: US awarded Chinese contributions by gifting them the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act in the name of Freedom, Democracy and Rules of Laws still effective today, same bottle different wines 美國以自由、民主和法治的名義向華人贈送了1882年《排華法案》，以感謝華人的貢獻，至今仍然有效，祇是用不同的名字吧!
https://rumble.com/v6ozc43-us-awarded-chinese-contributions-by-gifting-them-the-1882-chinese-exclusion.html
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8Y7CBQH/
https://youtu.be/WXROiv8LT2g?si=DIVx78TWWVu6MtvX
Video: Why China’s Nine-Dash Line is Unbreakable: History, Law, and Global Impact. US has absolutely no rights to dispute China’s claims. Any one studied Asian history could confirm this video’s correct assertion of facts 為何中國的九段線牢不可破：歷史、法律與全球影響。美國根本沒有權利對中國的主張提出異議. 任何研究過亞洲歷史的人都可以證實這段影片所陳述的事實是正確的.
https://rumble.com/v6oyo4r-why-chinas-nine-dash-line-is-unbreakable.html
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8Y7CsL5/
https://youtu.be/FQnVol9r3AE?si=JEp57JFDuBds2gw_
Yes, Ukraine Started the War: Donald Trump has been flayed alive by Western media and leaders for saying Ukraine started the war. Here are facts, not myths, says Joe Lauria. 是的，烏克蘭發動了戰爭: 唐納德·川普因聲稱烏克蘭發動了戰爭而遭到西方媒體和領導人的猛烈批評。喬·勞裡亞 (Joe Lauria) 說，這些都是事實，不是神話
The outcry spread quickly across the Western world: Donald Trump dared say Ukraine started the war.
The New York Times accused Trump of “rewriting the history of Russia’s invasion of its neighbor.” The paper’s White House correspondent wrote:
“When Russian forces crashed over the borders into Ukraine in 2022 determined to wipe it off the map as an independent state, the United States rushed to aid the beleaguered nation and cast its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a hero of resistance.
Three years almost to the day later, President Trump is rewriting the history of Russia’s invasion of its smaller neighbor. Ukraine, in this version, is not a victim but a villain. And Mr. Zelensky is not a latter-day Winston Churchill, but a ‘dictator without elections’ who somehow started the war himself and conned America into helping.”
The BBC reported:
“Ukraine didn’t start the war. Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, having annexed Crimea in 2014.
The annexation came after Ukraine’s pro-Russian president was ousted by popular demonstrations.”
CNN howled: “President Donald Trump has now fully adopted Russia’s false propaganda on Ukraine, turning against a sovereign democracy that was invaded in favor of the invader. … Trump wrongly accused Ukraine of starting the conflict.”
“In comments to reporters at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, Trump falsely claimed Kyiv had started the conflict, the largest on European soil since the second world,” complained the Financial Times.
It was pretty much the same thing across the Western media landscape, which spoke with one voice.
The media takes speaking with one voice as confirmation that they are right. But it’s often just massive confirmation bias for the story Western intelligence services and political leaders tell them, rather than an independent examination of the facts.
In this case the facts show that Trump is right.
The central question in all this is: when did the Ukraine war actually start? The Western mainstream leads masses of people to believe it began Feb. 24, 2022, when the Russian regular army intervened in what was already an eight-year old civil war that was very much begun by Ukraine, with U.S. help.
That’s the part they don’t tell you.
The key to the falsehood is what the BBC calls “Ukraine’s pro-Russian president” being “ousted by popular demonstrations.” [Emphasis added.]
Of course Trump didn’t explain that. He’s not a great public speaker. He too often fails to lay out the context needed to understand what he’s talking about.
Trump’s fleeting remark at a press encounter at his Florida estate last Tuesday set off the international furor.
“Today I heard: ‘Oh, well, we weren’t invited’ [to the talks in Saudi Arabia with Russia],” Trump said about Ukrainian President Volodmyr Zelensky. “Well, you’ve been there for three years … you should have never started it. You could have made a deal.”
It was those six italicized words that ignited the firestorm. The rest of what he said in that sentence was ignored.
He was condemned by European leaders for those few words. Zelensky, who still leads Ukraine, accused Trump of spreading “a lot of disinformation coming from Russia.”
“Unfortunately, President Trump, with all due respect for him as the leader of a nation that we respect greatly, is living in this disinformation bubble,” Zelensky said.
The only way the West can deal with this is to call what happened Russian propaganda. As if a narrative is wrong, not because the facts are wrong, but because Russia is saying it. Essentially, Russia is never right, and the U.S. and its allies are never wrong.
It’s like the story of the American sitting next to a Russian on a flight from Moscow to Washington. “What brings you to Washington?” the American asks.
“I’m traveling to do research on American propaganda,” the Russian says.
“What American propaganda?”
“Exactly,” says the Russian.
Blowing a Deal
What was left out of the mainstream reporting was that Trump was highlighting opportunities to negotiate peace that Zelensky and Ukraine had squandered. “You could have made a deal,” he said.
But Trump fundamentally failed to explain how the Ukraine war began in 2014 and not on Feb. 22, 2022, three years ago Monday. That’s when Russia directly entered a war that had already been started by Ukraine and especially, Trump didn’t mention, by the United States.
這番抗議迅速傳遍了西方世界：唐納德·川普竟敢說烏克蘭發動了戰爭。
《紐約時報》指責川普「改寫了俄羅斯入侵鄰國的歷史」。該報駐白宮記者寫道：
「2022 年，俄羅斯軍隊越過邊境侵入烏克蘭，決心要將烏克蘭這個獨立國家從地圖上抹去，而美國則緊急援助這個陷入困境的國家，並將其總統弗拉基米爾·澤連斯基視為抵抗英雄。
三年後，川普總統重寫了俄羅斯入侵其較小鄰國的歷史。在這個版本中，烏克蘭不是受害者，而是惡棍。而澤連斯基先生不是當代的溫斯頓·邱吉爾，而是一位“沒有選舉的獨裁者”，他以某種方式親自發動戰爭，並欺騙美國提供幫助。
BBC 報道：
「烏克蘭並沒有挑起戰爭。俄羅斯於 2014 年吞併克里米亞，並於 2022 年 2 月對烏克蘭發動全面入侵。
此次吞併是在烏克蘭親俄總統被民眾示威推翻後發生的。
CNN（CNN）怒斥道：「川普總統現在完全採納了俄羅斯在烏克蘭問題上的虛假宣傳，轉而支持入侵者，反對被入侵的主權民主國家。 ……川普錯誤地指責烏克蘭挑起衝突。
英國《金融時報》抱怨道： “川普在佛羅裡達州海湖莊園對記者發表評論時，錯誤地聲稱基輔挑起了這場衝突，這是二戰以來歐洲領土上最大的衝突。”
西方媒體界對此的看法基本一致，大家異口同聲。
媒體把一致的聲音視為自己正確性的證明。但這通常只是西方情報機構和政治領袖告訴他們的故事的大規模確認偏誤，而不是對事實的獨立審查。
在這種情況下事實證明川普是正確的。
這一切的核心問題是：烏克蘭戰爭究竟是從什麼時候開始的？西方主流讓大眾相信這場戰爭始於 2022 年 2 月 24 日，當時俄羅斯正規軍在美國的幫助下乾預了這場已持續八年的內戰，而這場內戰很大程度上是由烏克蘭引發的。
這是他們沒有告訴你的部分。
謊言的關鍵在於BBC所稱的「烏克蘭親俄總統」被「民眾示威趕下台」。 “[強調添加。]
當然，川普沒有解釋這一點。他不是一位出色的演說家。他常常未能闡明理解其言論所需的背景資訊。
上週二，川普在佛羅裡達莊園與記者見面時發表的簡短言論引發了國際社會的軒然大波。
川普在談到烏克蘭總統澤倫斯基時說：“今天我聽到有人說：‘哦，好吧，我們沒有被邀請’（參加沙特與俄羅斯的會談）。” 「好吧，你已經在那裡待了三年了……你根本不應該開始做這件事。你們本來可以達成一筆交易。
正是這六個斜體字引發了這場風暴。他在那句話中所說的其餘內容被忽略了。
他因這幾句話遭到歐洲領導人的譴責。仍然領導烏克蘭的澤連斯基指責川普散佈「大量來自俄羅斯的假訊息」。
澤連斯基說：“不幸的是，儘管我們非常尊重川普總統，但他是一個國家領導人，但他生活在這種虛假信息泡沫之中。”
西方應對這一問題的唯一辦法就是稱所發生的事情是俄羅斯的宣傳。就好像敘述是錯的，不是因為事實是錯的，而是因為俄羅斯這麼說。從本質上來說，俄羅斯永遠沒有對，而美國及其盟友永遠沒有錯。
這就像從莫斯科飛往華盛頓的航班上，一個美國人坐在一個俄羅斯人旁邊的故事。 “您為何來華盛頓？”美國人問。
「我來這裡是為了研究美國的宣傳，」這位俄羅斯人說。
“什麼美國宣傳？”
「確實如此，」俄羅斯人說。
交易失敗
主流媒體報導沒有提到的是，川普強調了澤連斯基和烏克蘭已經浪費的和平談判機會。 「你們本來可以達成協議，」他說。
但川普從根本上未能解釋烏克蘭戰爭為何始於 2014 年，而不是三年前的星期一，也就是 2022 年 2 月 22 日。當時俄羅斯直接介入了一場由烏克蘭，尤其是由美國（川普沒有提到）挑起的戰爭。
[參見：拜登證實美國為何需要這場戰爭]
“民眾示威”
2014 年 2 月，烏克蘭基輔，抗議者與警察發生衝突。
2014年2月20日，維克多·亞努科維奇被暴力推翻，他在2010年經歐安組織認證的普選中當選烏克蘭總統。
亞努科維奇在烏克蘭東部和南部俄語區的選民拒絕承認非法掌權的政府，捍衛自己的民主權利。
以俄羅斯族為主的克里米亞是亞努科維奇的主要支持地，該地僅在一個月後，即2014年3月16日，就投票決定脫離烏克蘭，重新加入俄羅斯。烏克蘭政府也宣布，不會將俄羅斯對克里米亞塞瓦斯托波爾黑海海軍基地的租約延長至2017年後。
烏克蘭其他地區也爆發街頭暴力事件。烏克蘭極右翼團夥在敖德薩的一座工會大樓內 活活燒死 48 名俄語使用者五天后，東部兩個省份宣布脫離烏克蘭獨立並佔領了政府大樓。
在美國的支持下，非法政府於2014年4月16日對頓巴斯地區上述兩個省份 發動了軍事攻擊。
這就是烏克蘭對戰爭的陳述以及戰爭日期。
川普沒有提及美國在亞努科伊奇下台以及基輔隨後對頓巴斯的戰爭中所扮演的重要角色。
美國在發動戰爭中所扮演的角色
2013 年 12 月 15 日，約翰麥凱恩在基輔向人群發表演講。
想像一下拉法葉公園裡抗議者的營地，其中一些甚至採取暴力行動。他們在白宮對面高聲呼籲，要求罷免美國總統。
隨後，兩名俄羅斯資深議員出現在公園。他們與抗議領導人一起出現並向人群發表講話，鼓勵他們，告訴他們俄羅斯與他們同在。
隨後，負責北美事務的俄羅斯副外交部長出現在拉法葉公園，向紮營的示威者分發食物。
後來，有人發現這位部長在公開電話中與俄羅斯駐美國大使討論總統被推翻後新美國政府的組成。這位部長也發表演說，俄羅斯花費 50 億美元為美國帶來民主。
這位當選的美國總統隨後被暴力推翻並逃離該國。俄羅斯成立了其選定的政府。加州拒絕俄羅斯扶植的政權並表示要脫離美國。新的政變政府隨後向加州發動了戰爭。
如果這件事真的發生在華盛頓，你認為美國有人會說俄羅斯跟推翻美國政府有關嗎？還是他們會說他是被「民眾示威」趕下台的？
但這正是2014年在烏克蘭發生的事情。副外交部長由時任美國主管歐亞事務的助理國務卿維多利亞紐蘭 (Victoria Nuland) 飾演。
歐巴馬試圖遏止戰爭
俄羅斯向頓巴斯提供了武器、裝備、彈藥和半獨立的瓦格納傭兵來保衛頓巴斯。為了掩蓋基輔的侵略行為並為其辯解，西方政府及其媒體錯誤地將莫斯科對俄羅斯族的幫助稱為「入侵」。
在非法政府開始對俄羅斯分離地區發動攻擊後，總統歐巴馬試圖限制攻擊升級。《紐約時報》2015年3月10日報道：
「總統私下表示，儘管面臨種種壓力，他仍然不願意派遣武器。在某種程度上，他告訴助手和訪客，武裝烏克蘭人將鼓勵人們相信他們實際上可以擊敗強大得多的俄羅斯人，因此可能會引起莫斯科更強烈的反擊。
歐巴馬先生繼續提出問題以表明他的疑慮。 “好的，如果我們派遣設備會發生什麼情況——我們必須派遣培訓師嗎？”一位不願透露姓名的人士轉述了討論內容。 「如果它最終落入暴徒手中怎麼辦？如果普丁升級局勢怎麼辦？
首先，歐巴馬談論的是一場正在進行的戰爭，這場戰爭始於前一年，而不是七年後。其次，歐巴馬敏銳地意識到，美國在與烏克蘭進行內戰的同時，對烏克蘭提供致命援助會激怒俄羅斯。
第三，歐巴馬在此承認了西方正統觀念如今所否認的觀點（但在當時被主流媒體廣泛報道），即「暴徒」是烏克蘭的一個大問題。歐巴馬所說的暴徒顯然是指為烏克蘭而戰的極右翼和新納粹團體。 [參見：論新納粹主義在烏克蘭的影響]
2015 年 9 月：美國總統歐巴馬（右）在紐約聯合國總部外與烏克蘭總統彼得波羅申科進行非正式交談。（白宮/皮特·索薩）
川普屈服於壓力
2016 年共和黨全國代表大會期間，民主黨人在共和黨政綱中發現，不向烏克蘭提供致命援助。在通俄門事件的瘋狂影響下，這被大肆宣揚為川普與俄羅斯勾結的證據，儘管這只是歐巴馬政策的延續。
為了擺脫通俄門的壓力，川普聽從了其叛逆顧問的建議，武裝了烏克蘭人，這極大地加劇了戰爭並激怒了俄羅斯人，正如歐巴馬所擔心的那樣。
川普上週二表示，烏克蘭有很多機會與俄羅斯達成協議。 為了結束戰爭，俄羅斯支持《明斯克協議》。
然而，法國、德國和烏克蘭（包括澤連斯基執政的三年）阻礙了法案的實施。梅克爾、前法國總統歐蘭德和烏克蘭總統彼得波羅申科都承認他們欺騙了俄羅斯，以便北約是烏克蘭提供武器和訓練時間。
當川普表示澤連斯基有三年時間達成協議，或者更確切地說是執行已經達成的協議時，他的意思顯然就是如此。
隨著烏克蘭再次對頓巴斯發動攻勢的跡象，俄羅斯於2021年12月向北約和美國提出了兩項條約建議，呼籲建立歐洲新的安全架構，即北約從前華沙條約國家撤軍，美國從距莫斯科數分鐘車程的波蘭和羅馬尼亞撤出導彈。
川普不斷重申，如果他擔任總統，俄羅斯的干預就絕對不會發生。也許他會談判這些條約 。這也是俄羅斯幾十年來一直在爭論的問題之一。
莫斯科告訴拜登政府，如果條約被拒絕，莫斯科可能會在烏克蘭採取「技術/軍事手段」。
拜登完全理解這意味著戰爭將進入一個新的、更致命的階段，因此拒絕了這些條約，從而激起俄羅斯直接幹預內戰。拜登需要這件事成為戰爭的「開始」——就好像歷史始於 2022 年 2 月 24 日一樣。
拜登和他的國防部長明確表示，美國的目標是「削弱」並推翻普丁政府，恢復 20 世紀 90 年代美國對俄羅斯的主導地位。
為此，拜登需要俄羅斯的入侵，以便對俄羅斯發動資訊、經濟和地面代理戰爭。三年後，西方失去了這三者，並且仍然在就這一切的開始撒謊。
Johnson Choi Cantonese language broadcast from San Francisco on Feb 23 2025: What do you get out from NeZhe2? It is more than just a movie! 蔡永強在舊金山2月23日2025用廣東話直播: 從哪吒2可以體驗真實的人生, 人性, 從個人，朋友，親人，家人，到國家層面的現實，無情和真情. 讓我體驗到蔡家爺爺和父親從小教育我們的人生大道理是準確的。一個國家, 一個民族，和一個家庭的興哀絕非出於意外.
https://rumble.com/v6odvj6-what-do-you-get-out-from-nezhe2-it-is-more-than-just-a-movie.html
https://youtu.be/NbFwyUEaLAc?si=LhEEVk0QgtvyaoPn
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8Ytsqs5/
How May China Help the World Break Free From US Tech Giants? 中國如何幫助世界擺脫美國科技巨頭的束縛 With DeepSeek’s democratization of AI, Global South nations face a historic opportunity. While India and Brazil leverage these tools to build sovereign AI, their dependence on U.S. digital infrastructure persists. The 2025 BRICS summit, hosted by Brazil, may redefine AI governance as countries explore partnerships with Chinese tech giants like Huawei to counter U.S. digital hegemony. Feb 21, 2025
The successive releases of the DeepSeek-R1 and Grok3 models have sparked a new wave of global interest in large language models (LLM) artificial intelligence. DeepSeek has managed to train models that perform close to, or in some cases even surpass, OpenAI’s GPT-4, but at a significantly lower cost. Additionally, by leveraging “distillation” technology, DeepSeek has developed a series of derivative models with relatively smaller parameter sizes, minimal performance degradation, and practical utility. Examples include the Qwen-7B and Qwen-32B models, which have been deployed on the Chinese SuperComputing Network SCNet and are freely available to the public.
Based on my experiments and estimates, deploying and running the DeepSeek-R1 671B model (commonly referred to as the “full-capacity model”) for internal research and experimentation incurs an approximate cost of over ￥300 ($41) per hour or more than ￥100,000 ($14,000) per month. If supervised fine-tuning (SFT) is applied to the model, the cost could increase several fold. While this expense may be beyond the reach of most individuals and small businesses, it is well within the budget of large enterprises and national entities. In comparison, the visible costs of training Elon Musk’s so-called most advanced large language model, Grok-3, include the use of 200,000 H100 high-performance GPUs and an annual electricity consumption equivalent to nearly 200,000 U.S. households. Despite these staggering investments, Grok-3’s performance scores in model benchmarks are only marginally higher than DeepSeek-R1’s—by less than 100 points.
This signifies that large language models have been significantly “democratized” by DeepSeek: any country can now train and deploy an AI model that is largely autonomous, aligned with its own values, and tailored to its specific realities—achieving performance close to or at the world’s most advanced level. Just a few months ago, this was a feat only within the reach of the United States and China.
Governments of several countries have already recognized the significance of this transformation. The Indian government has announced plans to invest in “computing infrastructure, data, and capital support to build AI-related applications in fields such as agriculture and climate change.” It is reported that India’s large language model will be developed based on DeepSeek-R1. Meanwhile, South Korea has declared its intention to accelerate the construction of national AI computing infrastructure, aiming to become the “world’s third-largest AI powerhouse.” This goal, proposed by the South Korean government in 2023, clearly reflects an awareness that nations can now build their own “sovereign AI” in the near term, a process significantly accelerated by DeepSeek’s open-source initiatives.
Sergio Amadeu, a professor at Brazil’s UFABC University and former director of the National Institute of Information Technology (ITI) under the Brazilian Presidency, highlights that DeepSeek’s open-source initiatives “enable countries that have been technologically dependent on the United States to formulate strategies that favor their own development… democratizing [large language model] technology and opening new possibilities for nations in the Global South.” However, he also cautions that “open-source alone cannot address the challenge of building sovereign infrastructure critical to local and national development.”
Amadeu’s insight underscores a significant issue in the realm of digital sovereignty: it is a systemic endeavor that cannot be achieved solely through a single piece of legislation or the breakthrough of a “killer app.”
Influenced by the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), discussions on digital sovereignty often center on the issue of data ownership—specifically, a nation’s right to use and manage data generated within its borders and to prevent its misuse by other countries. Corresponding solutions typically involve legislative measures to regulate local data storage and cross-border data transfers. For example, data generated within a country should be stored domestically, and any cross-border data transfers must comply with local laws.
Other researchers approach the issue from a communication studies perspective, focusing on the monopolization of information by U.S. internet giants and its subsequent impact on politics and national security. In response, they advocate for alternative internet platforms that operate independently of these major U.S. corporations. Concepts such as open-source development and decentralization are frequently highlighted in these proposals.
However, it turns out that data ownership is only one aspect of digital sovereignty, and to a large extent, it is a later-stage outcome rather than the root cause of a nation’s control over its digital future. The European Union realized this after implementing the GDPR for several years. Despite its strict regulations on data ownership, the reality remains that digital infrastructure—such as chips, servers, operating systems, and cloud platforms—is dominated by major U.S. corporations.
As a result, the EU has been left repeatedly investigating and penalizing U.S. tech giants for monopolistic behavior, yet it has been unable to stop the continuous one-way flow of data into the U.S., where agencies like the CIA and NSA maintain comprehensive surveillance. Recognizing this fundamental issue, the EU has begun developing Gaia-X, a cloud computing platform designed to compete with AWS. Of course, whether this initiative will achieve its intended goals remains an open question.
The Digital Sovereignty Index (DSI) framework argues that independent control over data ownership is the most visible manifestation of a nation’s overall digital sovereignty. However, without independence in digital infrastructure—the hardware and software that sustain digital ecosystems—restrictions on data ownership cannot be effectively enforced, as seen in the cases of the EU and Brazil. Similarly, without independent digital governance, the rules governing cyberspace will inevitably be dictated by U.S. tech giants.
Both digital infrastructure and digital governance independence rely on the capabilities of research institutions, enterprises, and talent engaged in the digital industry. Together, the four dimensions of digital sovereignty—independent control over data ownership, digital infrastructure, digital governance, and digital capabilities—form the complete framework of national digital sovereignty.
Because digital sovereignty is such a vast and complex system, attempting to reclaim it from U.S. digital hegemony solely through legislation on data ownership or by developing one or two “killer apps” is nothing more than an illusion. This reality also poses a significant challenge to the widely accepted “multi-stakeholder” theory in digital sovereignty research.
According to this theory, beyond the state, corporations, communities, and even individuals are also stakeholders in digital sovereignty. Their interests do not necessarily align with those of the state, and all should be given equal consideration in discussions on digital sovereignty.
A closer look at the four dimensions of the Digital Sovereignty Index makes it clear that building digital infrastructure, digital governance, and digital capabilities goes beyond the capacity of any individual or community. Only sovereign states or mega-corporations have the resources to undertake such foundational work.
Given that a handful of U.S. tech giants—closely aligned with the U.S. government—dominate most of the global digital space (with the exception of China), emphasizing a “multi-stakeholder” approach in the Global South often has the unintended effect of diverting attention away from national digital sovereignty. In practice, this weakens, or even undermines, efforts to strengthen state control over digital sovereignty, thereby indirectly sustaining U.S. digital hegemony.
In the field of large language model AI, DeepSeek’s open-source approach has prompted many Global South countries to consider a previously unimaginable aspect of digital sovereignty: sovereign AI. As large language models become increasingly central to how people access and generate information, control over these models effectively translates into control over ideology and value systems.
If Global South countries do not independently train and operate their own sovereign AI, their citizens will inevitably rely on AI products provided by OpenAI or other major U.S. corporations. This dependence means that these countries will have to continuously pay U.S. tech giants, their data will keep flowing into the hands of these companies, and they will have no recourse against the ideological biases embedded in these AI systems.
But as Amadeu has pointed out, once Global South countries—including relatively advanced economies like Brazil—begin developing their own sovereign AI, they will soon face broader digital sovereignty challenges. For instance, most Global South nations looking to train and deploy their sovereign AI models based on DeepSeek’s open-source framework currently have limited choices—they are likely to rely on cloud services from AWS or Azure. If the U.S. decides to ban its companies from providing services related to DeepSeek, these countries’ sovereign AI initiatives would be severely hindered. This highlights the constraints imposed by a lack of independent digital infrastructure.
For most Global South countries, building a relatively independent digital infrastructure and digital capability system is already a daunting challenge given their current scientific, industrial, and educational foundations. Even for a major economy like Brazil, digital infrastructure remains heavily dependent on the United States.
Since the policy shifts of the 1990s, Brazil’s ability to sustain long-term growth in its digital industry has been undermined, which is a key reason for its current low level of digital sovereignty. The situation is even worse for most other Global South nations, where reliance on foreign digital infrastructure is even more pronounced.
For most Global South countries, building a relatively independent digital infrastructure and digital capability system is already a daunting challenge given their current scientific, industrial, and educational foundations. Even for a major economy like Brazil, digital infrastructure remains heavily dependent on the United States.
Since the policy shifts of the 1990s, Brazil’s ability to sustain long-term growth in its digital industry has been undermined, which is a key reason for its current low level of digital sovereignty. The situation is even worse for most other Global South nations, where reliance on foreign digital infrastructure is even more pronounced.
How can Global South countries break free from U.S. digital hegemony and achieve a relatively independent digital sovereignty? Could cooperation with China help accelerate this process? These are pressing challenges that governments must now confront.
This year (2025), Brazil holds the presidency of the BRICS nations, and one of its six “priority work agendas” includes “encouraging inclusive and responsible AI governance to promote development.” At the time Brazil proposed this agenda, DeepSeek-R1 had not yet been released, and the concept of “sovereign AI” still seemed out of reach for the vast majority of Global South countries.
Now, with the open-source release of DeepSeek-R1 and the growing activity around its related open-source projects, countries like Brazil and other BRICS members may need to fundamentally shift their perspective on AI governance. The focus could move from relying on U.S. companies to provide AI solutions to exploring the possibilities of sovereign AI and multilateral AI governance.
With the BRICS summit scheduled to take place in Brazil this July, it will be crucial to see how the BRICS nations assess the changes DeepSeek brings to the global landscape. Whether sovereign AI, and digital sovereignty in a broader sense, will become a clear demand for BRICS countries will be a key point of interest during this year’s summit.
Given the democratization of large language model (LLM) artificial intelligence driven by DeepSeek, I recommend that countries in the Global South, such as Brazil, take immediate action to gradually develop their own sovereign AI and digital sovereignty strategies. Here’s a proposed roadmap:
1.Establish dedicated teams to study DeepSeek’s technology, focusing on understanding how to enhance or fine-tune the performance of large models in specific domains or topics through post-training methods. Additionally, explore how to develop complementary software (e.g., chatbots, intelligent agents) tailored around these models. This research should culminate in actionable plans for deploying autonomous and controllable sovereign AI systems.
2.Leverage the iterative development of sovereign AI as a driving force to identify and prioritize the importance of all data generated within the nation’s digital space. For the most critical data, establish clear ownership and control mechanisms. This can be achieved through legislation and enforcement to ensure that such data is stored domestically and that cross-border transfers of important data are strictly regulated.
3.Wile securing data ownership, strengthen collaboration with Huawei and other Chinese ICT enterprises to gradually reduce reliance on U.S. tech giants. This will help enhance national control over digital infrastructure and increase self-sufficiency in critical technological domains.
4.Collaborate with China within the BRICS framework to promote a multilateral approach to AI governance. This initiative should emphasize respect for national sovereignty while encouraging open exchanges of technology and expertise. The goal is to foster an international environment where countries can engage in equitable, mutually beneficial cooperation and consultation in the field of AI.
Business Blog 