Table of Contents: Political Forecasting and In-Depth Studies V1N1

This is the preface and table of contents of the inaugural issue of the quarterly journal “Political Forecasting and In-Depth Studies”.

The reason for including a “Review of the Hong Kong Issue” in the inaugural issue is to demonstrate a point by reviewing political predictions that have been proven by history: that is, given the right perspective and analytical methods, an individual’s power can overcome a powerful state apparatus.

Ye Qiquan had made very formal and serious predictions as early as 2003, 2014, and 2019 that “the British people’s excessive pursuit of short-term interests may lead to the premature end of the British political presence in Hong Kong.”

Under the 50-year provisional agreement reached between the Chinese and British governments, the British could have smoothly maintained their political, economic, and intelligence presence in Hong Kong until 2047. However, this political reality, which should have existed smoothly, was prematurely terminated on June 30, 2020. The British ended their political influence and intelligence presence in Hong Kong 27 years early. This fact is not only a major failure for British intelligence agencies, the British diplomatic system, and British policy-making bodies, but also a major failure for relevant US national institutions, as these two countries’ national institutions jointly formulated their Hong Kong policy.

Ye Qiquan warned of this failure 17 years, 6 years, and 1 year in advance, respectively. This event fully demonstrates that gifted individuals can overcome powerful state institutions in their areas of expertise. Ye Qiquan, the lead author of the inaugural issue of this journal, is one such genius.

Ye Qiquan not only made accurate predictions on the Hong Kong issue, but he also demonstrated his political talent in at least the following areas.

  1. They predicted Xi Jinping as a political strongman at least six years ahead of the entire Western political analysis community.
  2. Ye Qiquan clearly pointed out that Xi Jinping faced significant political risks when his authority was at its peak.
  3. Ye Qiquan predicted Hu Jintao’s complete political failure at least 10 years ago. Furthermore, it’s possible that the Xi Jinping faction’s “chance of a brief resurgence by the end of 2025” is also related to Hu Jintao (this speculation cannot be confirmed at present).
  4. Although he did not formally predict Zhang Youxia’s failure, Ye Qiquan did explicitly point out in an email sent to Ministry of Foreign Affairs personnel in September 2025 that “strongmen in the military are prone to premature deaths.” He also noted that the military is both the most powerful force and the most vulnerable.

Ye Qiquan’s political acumen is not limited to Chinese affairs. In April, May, and June of 2022, he made a series of predictions, including: the war would be protracted; the war would not end or achieve an effective ceasefire before the end of 2026; the Russians would not suffer major defeats on the battlefield; Ukraine would undergo “Yugoslavization” and “Somaliization”; Ukraine’s neighbors would intervene in the war, thus expanding it into a true European war; the war would be protracted between the L1 and L2 lines drawn by Ye Qiquan; and the Russians would establish approximately seven local regimes on Ukrainian soil.

Purchase link: https://bookstore.pppnet.net/en/downloads/en-toc-2026v1n1/

01-Political Foreword to the Inaugural Issue

Similar Posts

  • Even if Carrie Lam commits suicide, it will not help the situation in Hong Kong.

    After a prolonged period of turmoil and chaos, Carrie Lam has lost her basic political judgment. She is attempting to quell the unrest caused by the opposition by weakening her own support base. This is akin to someone cutting off their own hand to feed a pack of wolves in order to ensure their safety.

  • 3-9 The Causes of the Instability of China’s “July 1st Mechanism”

    China’s “July 1st mechanism” is an unstable power order. It is clearly the result of a brutal power struggle among multiple political forces. Within the Chinese military, there may be reasons related to insufficient political ability, resources, or operational skills among military leaders. For Xi Jinping’s side, the surprise attack was the fundamental and direct cause of losing ultimate political decision-making power in China. However, they retained their complete “traditional” power and full administrative authority. This outcome may be the result of a desperate resistance from the core members of Xi Jinping’s group. More likely, it is the result of manipulation behind the scenes by powerful political families in China. For Hu Jintao’s political group and Hu Chunhua, they may be the actual leaders of the “July 1st mechanism,” or they may be a temporary staged performance group. Other powerful political families in China will not sit idly by while weaker political groups seize supreme power. They have the ability to choose a favorable opportunity. They can both escape the “historical responsibility for illegal actions” and manipulate the composition of the next power center in China.

  • 2- The respective political deficiencies of the three political forces in China

    Based on China’s July 1, 2025 announcement mechanism, it can be determined that the Xi Jinping faction is currently the weaker party. The Chinese military is currently the main force stabilizing China’s political situation; however, the military and its leaders have serious deficiencies. Overall, China’s extra-mandate political force is currently the strongest party and holds a general advantage. However, these advantages do not guarantee their complete victory. None of the three parties is currently completely defeated, nor can any party guarantee victory. They all need to find a way out of their predicament.

  • China’s strategic weapons have an effective range exceeding that of the United States.

    If the United States deploys carrier strike groups as its primary weapon, China’s medium-range missiles will correspondingly join the battlefield. This is determined by the principle of reciprocal response in war. Politicians’ strategies may delay or slightly postpone this response process, but they cannot prevent it from happening. This is one of the essential attributes of war. Furthermore, as the highest-level conflict option for nations, the United States’ ability to withstand a nuclear strike of equal yield is significantly weaker than China’s. Ye Qiquan believes that once China possesses 3,500 nuclear warheads, it will effectively have the ability to “preemptively eliminate the option of nuclear war.” Whether analyzed from the perspective of the “effective range” of strategic weapons or from the perspective of actually withstanding a nuclear strike, Ye Qiquan believes that China has the advantage.

  • The Chaos of Imperial Order from a European Perspective

    Europeans are optimistic about the war in Ukraine. Their support for prolonging or even escalating the conflict is based on a political assumption: the “European victory theory.” From a practical and short-term perspective, this theory is supported by economic data, political realities, and historical experience. In fact, Europe does hold the initiative on the battlefield. However, from a long-term and geopolitical perspective, the “European defeat theory” may be more accurate. Europe has been divided into two parts by this war, leading to a significant weakening of its geopolitical power, a loss of political prestige and moral reputation, and a prolonged period of mutual attrition between the two opposing parts. China’s shift from supporting a strong Europe to weakening it has also contributed to this situation. Some firmly believe that since 2022, Europe has officially entered a potentially 200-year period of decline. During this period, political chaos in Europe will gradually intensify, with European countries not only engaging in external wars but also initiating internal conflicts. European cultural confidence and national self-confidence will gradually decline or even be lost. When Europeans can no longer endure this suffering, they will begin the process of finding a new path for Europe. Advancely evolving Europe’s philosophical logic will be a good way to shorten this decline. Only after Europe has evolved its underlying philosophical logic will they stop relentlessly suppressing the occasional political geniuses who can save Europe.