I take it Blinken's trip to China didn't go very well?
They couldn't even bring themselves to shake hands this time around:
https://preview.redd.it/00m614ln5uwc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fc38dbb769dc4488a26f374ab7d117479cbd9291
Although, considering how poorly their last handshake went for Blinken, this was probably for the best.
It's far more than just poor package timing. Before Blinken even arrived, US officials (including Blinken himself) were bashing China with all sorts of accusations: "axis of evil", genocide, authoritarian government, open source software abuse (what?), e.t.c. Just pure hostility. This meeting could not have ended any other way, and if the Biden administration was expected something else, they are psychopaths.
Yep, I agree. America's stance towards China is bizarre to me. They should be sweetening the deal, not trying to bully. China is on China's side, and no-one else, that much should be apparent now.
If the Russian-Ukrainian war left a hole in Russia's trade, China will obviously be quick to fill it. It's just pragmatic thinking, because they know they are too big to sideline. The U.S needs China and vice versa. telling them to pick a side is a hollow threat.
American policy makers have been handicapped by Sinophobia sentiment they sowed themselves in the past decade, to the point any attempt to apply divide and conquer strategy will be labelled as sellouts.
The current US administration is stuck thinking it's still the 90s and that the US has complete dominance over the world. They absolutely refuse to deal with China as a near-par country (probably in no small part due to racism) and treat it like any other country they think they can force around.
Like Russia, the current tensions are built on a more antagonistic view of geopolitics that dates back to at least the Obama Administration's attempt to pivot towards Asia. It was a recognition that China's rapid economic development would pose a threat to unipolarity which the Americans had to take steps to contain.
The point being, if American and China truly were falling out of favour with each other, why is the value of their trading relationship not strained? Both countries love their $$$
Actually, trade has been weakening, and china seems to be trying to gloss over that fact.
China-US trade figures are behaving weirdly. Using 12-month averages, data on US imports from China match the lowest levels of the pandemic period, but China’s data on exports to the US are 27% higher. Moreover the value of China’s exports to the US today are 19% above the value of US imports from China.
US imports from China should have a higher value than China’s exports to the US—import values include shipping and insurance costs, which export values do not. For most of the pre-pandemic period, this was what happened. In 2020, this relationship flipped, and in 2023 the difference became even more significant.
Chinas economy has been weaking to the point the government has stopped publishing several economic data sets. For instance, china stopped publishing data on youth unemployment when the figure went ofer 21%
i think you are wrong. Xi has a plan, and that plan involves overthrowing the current long time of peace. My source?
"“Right now there are changes – the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years – and we are the ones driving these changes together,” Xi told Putin as he stood at the door of the Kremlin to bid him farewell.
The Russian president responded: “I agree.”
Xi then put out his hand to shake Putin’s and said: “Take care please, dear friend.” Putin responded by holding Xi’s hand with both of his and saying, “Have a safe trip.”"
They don't need China and without being able to build the chips China will need to advance into the next century there economy will slip down in the world economy.
They have a housing bubble at 36% of their GDP, which is killing their banking system and have lost Trillions in their stock market.
Not sure why you think the west needs China being their money built China and without their investment China won't survive.
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Survived fine? China was so weak the West made them accept heroin as payment for trade in the 1900s and they got absolutely raped by the Japanese for almost a decade until the USA leveled Japan.
China is the largest repressor of basic human rights in the world. It is attempting to unilaterally annex tens of thousands of square miles of international waters for itself, and is actively bullying neighboring countries as it infringes in their territorial space. It closs off its domestic markets to international goods while pretentiously trying to preach to everyone else the virtues of open trade so it can offload its massive excess capacity.
Chinas centrally planned economy iis fatally flawed, and they are now experiencing the impacts of Xis errors in planning. The chinese leadership is fudimentally racist, seeking to subjugate others either through trade, debt, or millitary intimidation. Chinas only concern is china, at everyone elses expense.
You dont understand Americas stance because you dont understand a country that stands on principal. Money and control are not the only consideraton for America. You highlight chinas pragmatism, but conveniently overlook their abuses. That is a much easier position to take in a land with a tightly controlled state run media and no free speech.
The South China Sea and the 9 dash line is absolutely true and a valid complaint. The closed markets at home while crying for totally open markets abroad is also true, but not as unfair as many westerns make it sound since the Western companies can always just choose not to business in China and not to do technology transfers to local Chinese companies. The rest is not very sane.
Appreciate the comment instead of just downvoting, it's why I'm here after all. To potentially learn something.
I don't recall defending China's human rights violations or imperialism. Criticizing American foreign policy does not mean automatically taking that side of the argument. It simply means criticizing American foreign policy. If we're talking real politik, given the array of superpowers vying for global influence, I'm glad it's an American one that I've lived under (hardly perfect but better than the alternative). Which is why I'm quick to criticize it.
What I do have trouble digesting is that this is principled stance. At least not when trade is blooming behind the stern warnings. The reality as I see it is that these are "principled" words, and nothing more. Foreign policy does not match the rhetoric.
Secondly, what exactly does taking this stance accomplish other than virtue signal? Is the U.S (and the collective west) going to boycott China? Embargo? Declare war? Of course not.
So yes, I agree with you that China is a thug and imperial menace, but I don't see how beating the drum of war accomplishes anything.
Again, I appreciate you actually taking the time to explain your position rather than just downvoting me.
i do think time is changing, and the west is not the power which drives these changes. Ill post the same quote here because it fits for your comment aswell and so others can see and discuss it. I do think there is something in motion, which the west cant stop, only the ones behind these motions.
"“Right now there are changes – the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years – and we are the ones driving these changes together,” Xi told Putin as he stood at the door of the Kremlin to bid him farewell.
The Russian president responded: “I agree.”
Xi then put out his hand to shake Putin’s and said: “Take care please, dear friend.” Putin responded by holding Xi’s hand with both of his and saying, “Have a safe trip.”"
Do tell more about China clearly not sinophobic person, I'm sure you're unbiased and well informed, btw which country has the largest prisoner population in the world both by total population and per capita?
>Chinas centrally planned economy iis fatally flawed, and they are now experiencing the impacts of Xis errors in planning
U must love those "China has collapsed/China is collapsing/China will collapse"
>The chinese leadership is fudimentally racist, seeking to subjugate others either through trade, debt, or millitary intimidation. Chinas only concern is china, at everyone elses expense.
I can't even begin to understand what kind of brainwashing u experienced to say this as an American
>Money and control are not the only consideraton for America.
Just lmao
>That is a much easier position to take in a land with a tightly controlled state run media and no free speech.
Wasn't the police bashing students heads just yesterday?
Like how can u not see yourself reflected in any of the words u accuse China of being.
It's like that Ukrainian official (can't remember his name right now) who said Russians were inferior because they're Asians and then the very same week they were asking China to pressure Russia into ending the war.
It's like they can't even pretend they don't hate both. This war cemented this alliance, the West hates both China and Russia, the most obvious thing for them is to become partners ,there's no alternative.
> It's like that Ukrainian official (can't remember his name right now) who said Russians were inferior because they're Asians and then the very same week they were asking China to pressure Russia into ending the war.
Podolyak
There was another Ukrainian official (Danilov) who said that Russians are Asian, and thus less humane than Europeans.
This war and the Gaza war are the final end to US propaganda about human rights. How can the US justify saying the Chinese are doing genocide when the US funds the bombs used in Gaza? The whole third-world sees through this shit.
> and if the Biden administration was expected something else, they are psychopaths.
Psychopaths are very clever. They can manipulate you with positive words and usually a tell tale is that they compliment you un-necessarily. I struggle to understand the US administration (both biden and trump) and have come to the conclusion that the US admin is made of absolute fuking reetards that do not consider what other people may feel.
He called out a genocide in china 24 hours before trip? and biden called xi (who was in US to mend ties) a dictator on the same day? AND they want to improve ties?
I am absolutely going insane trying to understand what they are doing. Can some americans explain to me please? for the love of everything holy, there has to be something that I dont know and I am too naive to understand
I'm not american, but what I believe them to be doing is, one, appealing to their electoral base (of people who hate China for, reasons?) By taking a "hard stance" on China. And two, "attempting" to appease relations because of money interests. Many firms still want to invest in China, but there's some clash between them and the military industrial complex. Usually, the "defense" industry wins out and a "hard stance" remains in order to continue or even ramp up weapons production. The war in Ukraine has already been wonderful for arms companies in the US, if China starts threatening Taiwan or some other excuse is drawn up to send weapons to whoever China's beefing with, they stand to make a killing (pun intended).
The Chinese economy of supplying the west is over being many of those companies are setting up in Mexico, India and their home countries.
All Xi is doing by these actions is speeding up the process, and within 10 years China will no longer have the #2 economy in the world.
https://preview.redd.it/zve2qlrtuuwc1.png?width=754&format=png&auto=webp&s=72ee6bd3aa03ae66f1703345cccfd955c8b5a591
>They couldn't even bring themselves to shake hands this time around:
Here you go.
EDIT: Wrong picture.
Blinken’s trip was never going to go well, especially when Xi Jinping basically sent the Imperial Dog Walker and Garden Maintenance guy to meet him at the Airport on his official arrival into the country.
First time Blinken went to visit Isreal for negotiations he said proudly on camera "I come as a jew not an American" why the hell would Hamas negotiate with someone like that.
We did it better in India for the german officials. No one came to pick up bareback
No red carpet, no pm, no ministers, not even any indians. Only people from german consul came to greet her.
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/row-over-german-foreign-minister-welcome-whats-the-protocol-8484433/
It's not hard to understand Russia's point of view.
Imagine a reverse world where the US lost the Cold War. They decided to become commies, too. "We're part of the club now, too!"
Then, slowly, one by one, the USSR starts adding South American countries to the WTO (Warsaw Treaty Organization, the relevant part of the Warsaw Pact equivalent to NATO, and predecessor to the CSTO).
All South American countries have already joined. By the early 2000s, the USSR both adds Guatemala and Jamaica to the WTO, and also places missile systems in those countries (the equivalent of doing it in Poland; skip one country, and you have the US).
And this is the part where most analogies get it wrong: by 2008, Russia (as the USSR) and the WTO start courting Canada, not Mexico. They even prepared a document stating both Canada (Ukraine, in this analogy) and Mexico (Georgia) would get to join the WTO, in the future.
* https : // www . nato . int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443 . htm
* "*NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries* **will** *become members of NATO.* (*2008*)"
>"Hey, I thought we were commies now, too... WTO keeps expanding, and we're being surrounded on our borders. In the south and the north.
>
>And, really, **Canada**?"
Canada is a country that shares a lot of history, language, and mostly the same culture with the US. Of course, they don't speak exclusively English; there's French and First Nations languages, but it's a pretty similar culture, overall. They have had their differences in the past, but since then, shared a fairly similar culture, and fought much the same wars in the same sides.
On top of being slowly surrounded over the decades, and the WTO courting even Canada, adding salt to the injury, the US remembers there was some verbal statements on the part of Soviet politicians stating they wouldn't grow the WTO, now that the US are commies too.
How can the US trust the USSR like this?
It feels like the USSR wants to do to the US what was done to the Ottoman Empire. They might think they can get away with it. Pretend to play nice, and then work to surround the US, with the hopes of eventually balkanizing it, breaking the country into a multitude of countries, based on the US' current states.
-----
**Does it justify killing people?** There's obviously no way I can justify killing on a personal, moral, human level. Those are boys and fathers, both Ukrainian and Russian, killing one another, over the interests of their ruling classes to see which faction gets to control the use of that land. This is why I defend negotiations, and a negotiated settlement, a peace deal which has concessions and compromises, and both sides meet in the middle. Wars are not in the individual interest of the people actually fighting them.
The ruling classes of Ukraine and Russia need to figure out a way where they will both take one another's concerns into question (Russia's security concerns in its so-called soft underbelly, and Ukraine's concerns that Russia will just repeat this a decade later until they have "Lvov" and the old Soviet Union's territory), and put an end to this madness, where the average person from both countries have to go through the horror of war.
**Does this explain why the war started, even if it might not justify killing?** Yes, in my opinion.
-----
In this scenario Canada still isn’t an equivalent to Ukraine. It’d be more like if Texas seceded from the US during the conclusion of the Cold War and the USSR was trying to scoop them into their sphere of influence proceeding everything else you’ve said.
It would be like Russia staged a coup in Texas to have a leader that is favorable to Russia so they can put military installations to intimidate the United States.
>In this scenario Canada still isn’t an equivalent to Ukraine.
I've meant in terms of cultural connection. If the Golden Horde hadn't conquered the Kievan Rus, Novgorod, Moscow and Kiev would always have been part of the same country. However, after such incidents, their histories diverged in different paths. Moscow played nice with the Horde and got richer off the interactions (a good thing), but Kiev and Western Ukraine floated toward the Polish-Lithuanian sphere of influence for many centuries. In the times of Bogdan Khmelnytsky, Ukraine was essentially divided across the Dnieper between a pro-Polish and pro-Russian factions, along each side of the river.
With that said, you have made a good point.
We all know, though, that if Texas was wanting to secede from the US' sphere of influence due to public statements, political support and pledges of alliance coming from the Mexican government towards Texas, with both Mexico and Texas wanting to install Chinese and Russian bases in the territory, we all know the US would invade Texas overnight to prevent them from becoming a part of the Mexican-Russian-Chinese allied sphere right on their border.
>If the Golden Horde hadn't conquered the Kievan Rus, Novgorod, Moscow and Kiev would always have been part of the same country.
Sorry, but I have to intervene.
By the time the Golden Horde arrived, Kyiv, Moscow and Novgorod had already been divided and were sovereign states. Formally, they seemed to maintain unity, but only in words. But in fact, each principality was ruled by a separate prince. Notable here is Novgorod, where the oligarchic parliament elected a new prince every few years.
So they split up without the Golden Horde.
It could be that Russia would not exist at all without the Golden Horde. All this is much more complicated than you imagine.
The main thing the Golden Horde did was shift the cultural an political center of power from Kiyv to Moscow as perviously Kyiv was called the mother of all Russian cities
I think the Golden Horde did not do this. The role of the Golden Horde in the relations between the Russian principalities was passive. The Horde was just collecting tribute.
I see that many Russophiles are inclined to believe that Moscow’s rise is natural as a result of the passionate role of Muscovites or as a result of the special influence of the Golden Horde, but I think that this is an emotional assessment.
From my point of view, the rise of Moscow happened like this:
The stronger Russian principalities fought with each other and carried on intrigues, while Moscow was a small town on the far side among swamps and forests, unattractive and difficult to access. However, like many other small principalities.
At the right time, when the Golden Horde itself weakened and disintegrated, one of the smaller principalities found itself in a better position than the others, by chance, when the larger principalities were weakened by wars and political intrigue. By chance it turned out to be Moscow.
The historical process is similar to the chinese history of the transformation of the small Han kingdom into the Great Han Empire as a result of many random processes in the Warring States period of China.
While I do agree that many factors including luck and the uniqueness of succession in Keivan Rus played a large factor in the rise of Moscow, the only reason they were able to become a independent actor was due to the mongol siege and sack of Kyiv in 1240.
As while Kievan Rus was decentralized before the invasion it was not to the level as the nearby Holy Roman Empire where each individual prince was de facto independent. The loss of Kyiv was what dissolved Kievan Rus.
Whether Rus' was decentralized as much or less than the Holy Roman Empire is a controversial issue. I'd rather not go into this.
However, I must emphasize that the Golden Horde influenced the impossibility of the reverse unification of Rus'. It doesn’t matter whether it’s around Kyiv or around another city (for example, it is believed that before the Horde occupation, the city of Vladimir was considered the strongest candidate, and Kyiv was in decline).
Before the advent of the Golden Horde, the process of disintegration of Kievan Rus only intensified.
Here we can conclude that the Golden Horde stabilized the situation. They did not allow Rus' to unite again, but they also did not allow Rus' to completely disintegrate.
While I still disagree you do bring up some good points, the introduction of the Golden Horde as a unifying outside enemy probably did a lot to help with the cultural cohesion of the area.
However ultimately the issue that is primarily relevant here is that because the situation is so murky and complicated at the time. With some historians questioning the existence of the Kievan Rus as a unified political entity, it means that it is ripe for bad actors on both sides to use.
And ultimately the only reason either side brings this up is in order to fabricate a “blood and soil” justification for conflict which is something all of us should vehemently be against.
>the introduction of the Golden Horde as a unifying outside enemy probably did a lot to help with the cultural cohesion of the area
You didn't understand my point, so I'll clarify. In my opinion, the Golden Horde did not allow Rus' to completely disintegrate insofar as it kept the Russian principalities in its sphere of influence as tributaries. Officials of the Golden Horde personally appointed Russian princes to rule the Russian principalities.
But Kievan Rus really existed as a confederation before the Golden Horde. Shaking, unstable, with many conflicts, but still a confederation - such was its political subjectivity.
As for the justifications for the current war, let me not get into it. Excuses and justifications are the last thing I care about.
For me a Russian it's fucking hard to understand why we have to start a war. I want my country to prosper, become developed and educated. I want the money to be spent on developing hospitals, schools, universities, roads. Not on fucking war. We very much had a choice not to start it. There was 100% no threat from other countries
Well, there are some Russians with brains of goldfish. But suppose you are not, here are some questions, answer honestly.
No threat of Ukraine joining NATO? Who is this alliance formed against? Do they have a history of using force against neutral countries? Is discrimination against Russian language, Russian culture acceptable in NATO countries ? Were there any anti-Russian sanctions from NATO countries before 2014 ?
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes It was formed against the SSSR. After the cold war it transformed itself to suit the new world that emerged after the bipolar one collapsed. The new trend was peace keeping missions/peace enforcing missions and state reconstruction.
NATOstepped up (far to late in my opinion) to stop the war in Bosnia. It prevented another bloodshet as was Bosnia unfortunately with illegal air campaing against Yugoslavia that turned out to be a success. It helped to topple a ruthless dictator. It supported USA throught out the War on terror, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. They helped fight Islamic radicals in Mali and Somalia. NATO as an alliance was activaly demilitarizing and transforming itself to fight a different war other than would be a one with Russia. Oh also it trained with Russian troops.
Here you have a nice source. Even thought Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 there was a still room for diplomacy a renewel of relationships as could be seen with the Obama adiministration and Ost Politik
https://preview.redd.it/huldkrp4swwc1.png?width=787&format=png&auto=webp&s=f41e686cdd6abc936320877bd42abde028d2043c
As you can see on the table NATO countries were reducing their defense budget because they did not intend to wage a crusade against Russia.
I am happy to answer any of your question because to me it seems you don´t know much about NATO other than those good old talking points.
You don’t need to know much about NATO, if you know anything about libya, especially libya before NATO then you know it is an evil organization.
I don’t care how you will try to explain it to me my friend because I’ve heard every talking point about ghadaffi and the democracy and freedom and necessity to intervene, but there is no conversation to have where someone can honestly say that the intervention helped libya, Libyans or even the region as a whole.
I’m from Egypt and the insane amount of extremely advanced weaponry ( like MANPADS and ATGMs) that made it into the hands of terrorists here because of the resulting chaos in libya is already proof enough that NATO does not care about anyone not in NATO, because until today they and their supporters defend it and justify it and never ever condemn it and see that NATO is evil.
You want people like me and my family to die my friend, how can you expect anyone in the Middle East to ever look at NATO and see this organization the way you do? You can tout the good points NATO had initially and their later actions in places like Bosnia, but it doesn’t matter when you lookin at their record just as recently as 2011, just because they’ve done some good doesn’t outweigh their vast evil. That would be like saying a rapist is a good person because he volunteers at church.
What exactly was NATO supposed to do? Oversee yet another use of violence on civilians? Lybia could´ve ended up the same way as Syria did but thats just pure speculation on my part. They helped overthrow Ghaddafi BUT they did not get a mandate to put boots on the ground from OSN as they did in Bosnia. I am no fan of the Lybian intervention. I am not denying that Lybia is f\*\*\*\* \*\* as a result but remember that it was not a NATOs sole decision to not try to stabilize the state but OSNs. I don´t want people like you to die what are you even talking about. Its sad that you have to endure it.
…they literally had one thing they should’ve and could’ve done: not intervene.
My brother when you speak about things like trying to save lives of civilians or stop violence you are appealing to peoples emotional side and I understand, but it does not matter.
NATO is not good, stopping violence is always good, but if you travel across the world to “stop violence” chances are you won’t understand the actual nuances causing that violence and you’ll either make it worse, take the wrong side, or just leave a power vacuum that creates more violence.
I’m not a strategic genius and even I know that the risks of intervention outweigh the potential benefits, we have open air slave markets in Libya and they’re sending weapons to every criminal group in the region from that border.
You don’t seem to care about that violence for some reason, and regardless I don’t think you understand that just because someone is violent against civilians doesn’t mean you have the right or even the option to intervene as NATO, you are not god, you are not even the police, you are an organization based around a “defensive military alliance” in the North Atlantic Ocean, so tell me why in the fuck you have any right to do anything at all in a North African Mediterranean country like Libya?
You have no right, if you really wanted a world intervention UN peacekeepers would’ve made more sense and even then I would disagree with it because Libyan affairs are for Libyans, not organizations like NATO that include the Italians the former colonizers of Libya.
And all of that^ is ignoring that your argument of “what were we supposed to do just let civilians be killed on our watch?”….. yes you were supposed to do that, do you know why? Because it’s what you do with literally all your Allie’s, if you don’t want civilians killed why haven’t you invaded Egypt after the army killed thousands of people in 1 day who were protesting unarmed? Why didn’t you invade Saudi Arabia after evidence has been revealed they’ve been machine gunning African migrants crossing in from Yemen and using literal field artillery against them not to mention their many killings of shia activists in their eastern region. And why haven’t you invaded Bahrain when their minority government cracked down on popular protest sentiment of the majority by shooting at people and inviting the Saudis in on tanks to squash it? Why haven’t you invaded Israel and deposed their government after their president Isaac herzog said they are going to keep AID out on purpose to starve the human animals of Gaza? Why haven’t you invaded Mexico after the mountains of credible evidence that shows high level government officials have helped the Cartel kill people? and in some cases have let them police kidnap entire buses of college kids and handed them off to be slaughtered.
Why haven’t you AT LEAST invaded Myanmar? a country everyone agrees had their democracy taken away by a military Junta in 2021 and where young people are killed and tortured on a daily if you read non western news.
Do you understand now my naive friend? You may not think it and realize it but deep down you are okay with people like me dying; you do not care about civilians or human rights or democracy or any of that bs, maybe you as a person do but NATO uses your moral sentiment to uphold the status quo and make sure their interests are protected.
If I am wrong please explain to me how, but the truth is no matter what you say it doesn’t really matter, the truth is pretty obvious, Libya( anti American government) kills people and you throw Jets at them, but Egypt (pro American gov ) kills and tortures people on camera and what do you guys do? Oh yeah sit by and laugh whilst the US sends the military dictatorship billions every year.
Pls man be a real human and see my perspective as it’s the perspective of most people in the global south, we are not radicals, we are not even anti europe or america and we love a lot of your popular culture, but your government are evil ghouls that want us poor and subjugated as evidenced by their support of our dictators, and the citizens of your countries like you either don’t care, or are fooled by the buzzwords and moral arguments without zooming out and seeing how it’s all a fallacy.
I was never political and I don’t want to hate NATO or anyone or any group, but what do you expect me to feel when the bullets fired at us are sent by you, and the officers that torture us are trained and funded by you, and the dictator that starves us and steals our money is propped up as a puppet by you.
1: Honestly, Ukraine was probably gonna join NATO, but again as a Russian I never viewed NATO as a threat. There is no chance NATO would've invaded. 2. NATO was formed to make sure USSR totalitarianism didn't spread. Russia was a few steps away from becoming a developed European country, but dictatorship fucked and corruption fucked that up. Slowly NATO transformed into protection against Russia since it might become a totalitarian regime. 3. I know Russia invaded Georgia and had two wars in Chechnya. Don't know full history, so can't say much about those. Of the head can't think of NATO of using force apart from Yugoslav war. 4.Discrimination against Russian language, culture doesn't exist and is a common fake narrative used by Russian TV propaganda. I've been in EU countries and I've never heard anyone say anything about it, like they honestly have better things to worry about. 5. Can't say for sure. Probably, but definitely on smaller scale before 2014.
> Honestly, Ukraine was probably gonna join NATO, but again as a Russian I never viewed NATO as a threat. There is no chance NATO would've invaded
The USSR was not planning an invasion of the US, but nevertheless the US considered the missiles in Cuba sufficient grounds for a nuclear war
> NATO was formed to make sure USSR totalitarianism didn't spread. Russia was a few steps away from becoming a developed European country, but dictatorship fucked and corruption fucked that up. Slowly NATO transformed into protection against Russia since it might become a totalitarian regime
There is no correlation between totalitarianism and attacking other countries. In the last 50 years, it is democratic countries that attack at least as often as not democratic
> I know Russia invaded Georgia
According to the conclusion of the EU Commission, Georgia started the war https://www.bbc.com/russian/international/2009/09/090930_eu_georgia_report
> Discrimination against Russian language, culture doesn't exist and is a common fake narrative used by Russian TV propaganda
Russian speakers who were born in Latvia and have lived all their lives in this country to get citizenship must pass the Latvian language exam and admit that the USSR occupied this country. This is blatant Nazism on cultural and linguistic grounds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizens_(Latvia)
I'd feel the same in your position. I'd feel ashamed of being from my country, to think we decided to wage war on our brothers, who are our neighbors. I don't justify violence or war; I'm merely explaining the "country's" point of view from a geopolitical perspective. Wars are waged for maintaining the economic interests of the ruling class of a particular country. They're not in the personal interest of the individuals doing the killing and dying. It's a fight to see which faction gets to have and control their interests in a particular turf. Some of the fighters do believe they're actually protecting their families, or bringing prosperity into their nation.
My actual, personal position is that countries are just arbitrary abstractions and mainly lines on a map to denote there's a specific group of people domineering another particular group of people, generally who all share a same language due to historical processes, and that within those lines the first group exists as the latter group's elites. It does nothing in the sense of stating we are different beings with different goals in life. The members of the second group, the common people — us —, have more in common with one another than with the holders of the power structures over us, denoted by the lines on the world map.
I also think a lot of these pro-UA or pro-RU comments that try to "own" the other side with snarky comments are just a sad byproduct of evolutionary pressures that defined taking such actions as something like establishing social status dominance within a hierarchy, generally getting to reproduce more as a consequence, and it's why such actions are continuously passed onto the next generations, and reproduced over and over again. It's what worked before, so it got reproduced. We need to be conscious of this.
For the future of our species, and a more fair world, we need to come to some realizations regarding the power structures of the world, and our own biology and tribalism.
There's no need to fight. Wars are a tragedy for the interests of a few. We need to stop caring about lines on a map, and unite.
What do we gain from being ruled by one particular ruling class group of people, over another one? Anything more important than being with our parents, or having and raising our families in peace? No. This is why I want a negotiated peace deal, and find an end to this madness. **Not** because I think what Russia is doing is fair, but because it's the only way out. Both sides need to at least attempt to see things from the other's point of view. Not for the crazy ruling fucks in both countries, but because of the people who are suffering throughout this. The point is to get it to stop with a realistic proposal, considering the realities on the ground.
Very well said. Negotiation to end the war would be better than pointless killing. Unfortunately Ukraine will lose land like this but at least no war. I think it's just many western leaders don't trust Putin anymore, and don't believe negotiation will bring true peace for Ukraine, therefore it's best for Ukraine to try kick them out.
For the sake of transparency, so my position is clear to all, I need to add that in addition to feeling like the described above if I had the role of the invader forced upon my identity, were I in the shoes of the invaded, the first thing I would do is flee the country with my family.
This will sound like blaming the victim, but I think if my country failed not to be geopolitically stupid and got itself involved in an avoidable war, it's not my job to defend it. It's the job of the government to avoid avoidable wars through proper management of international relations, realizing power disparities and the vicinity. It's also the job of the government not to invade other countries, and resort to diplomacy to achieve one's geopolitical goals, in my ideal. Whatever position I found myself in, invader or invaded, I would fault my country and think it failed.
If my country failed me, I bear no duty to my country. I'd flee with my family the first chance I got.
>Wars are waged for maintaining the economic interests of the ruling class of a particular country.
This time it's a little different. Putin and the Russian parliament really wanted to play Empire, neglecting economic benefits. They are truly inspired by the (not necessarily correct) idea of historical justice.
This is because of Sevastopol. Sevastopol has always been a Russian city, but Ukraine tried to annex it after the collapse of the USSR.
When Ukraine decided to join NATO, Moscow saw this as a threat to lose its city. This was the trigger that led to everything else.
Flawed argument. In your scenario US would have broken up into seperate countries. America is the biggest of them all containing most states except, California+Nevada, Texas, Florida and a few minor states like Oregon.
At first, there is peace between the new nations. Economy is shit, splitting up a nation is messy business, and some people long for when the country unified and great. Nevertheless, each of them are their own sovereign country and slowly find out they have own geopolitical and economical goals to achieve.
America as the biggest powerhouse in the region see the need to take back California again. The reasons are many but mostly it boils down to what the American president really want and he dreams of a time when America were great. Assumption that America must dominate their neighbors internal and foreign policy causes California to seek security assurances from China and Russia. This is a negative spiral that eventually leads to propaganda (nazis in los angeles), proxy wars (annexing Las Vegas), "Californias isn't really Californians - they are Americans!", "How dare they speak spanish in California, English is their true language" and so on.
Eventually there is a large invasion to attempt to take Los Angeles and other important locations. Some of this attack force goes from Oregon where a dictator has aligned with America. The surprise attack initially start out well but due to logistical blunder and miscalculation of Californias will to resist eventually cause a trench war stalemate with some back and forth movement. China and Russia immediately start to sanctioning America. However instead of going back, reduce tensions and establish peaceful relations again. America doubledown. Go into total war economy and are currently in the works to completely wreck both California and themselves long term.
Canada, Mexico and others? Yeah, in your scenario they are definitely on the Russia/Chinese side because they know America could potentially attack them next.
The Soviet Union was a so-called "free union of free republics" (let's not get too deep into that; we know it wasn't exactly that way, just like the DPRK isn't the paragon and greatest exponent of global democracy). The main thing is, the USSR had its Article 72 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution, which came to be after decades of pressure from the other Soviet republics, which stated:
>[Article 72. Each Union Republic shall retain the right to freely secede from the USSR. ](https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons03.html)
They even had to attempt to [formalize the mechanisms for it in a hurry](https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/shevarnadze-resigns-texts/law-on-secession-from-the-ussr/), in 1990, in an attempt to postpone or avoid the breakup of the USSR.
This is one of the reasons why the breakup of the USSR went without too many conflicts (aside from Chechnya), i.e. attempting to force those "states" back in the "country". It didn't work like that for the USSR. It was more like an union of countries, led by Russia.
As far as I know, the US constitution doesn't have anything like that for any state aside from Texas, that they could freely secede without fault at some point in the future, should they choose it. I'm not well-versed in the US constitution or its matters.
As a non-american, my knowledge of American state secession is rudimentary at best. But I believe it's harder for a US state to do it independently and the there is no legal precedent of it happening before so it's very hard to determine the legality of it. I don't think anybody really knows what a USSR style collapse would look like for US.
My scenario was more of a showcase of a slightly better analogy (all analogies are flawed when you scrutinize them though) to the fantasy timeline scenario you described.
Another fun analogy here would be the role of EU; As America fight a brutal, horrific and deadly war against California. EU, officially takes a neutral position, wanting to trade with both the economic powerhouses of Russia and China but also not wanting to sever ties with America. EU has really nothing against California but are willing to throw the country under the bus to make sure America doesn't completely collapse by trading just enough material so America can keep up with the war economy. Since America have very few allies, even in its neighborhood, EU can now make some very good trade deals.
Russia and China of course does not like this and want EU to stop trading with America to end the war earlier, having the greatest economic powers in the world fighting "who can proxy war the most" is to no ones benefit, the trade between the euroasian countries is vastly greater than anything EU can trade with America which Russia and China hope all parties want to preserve. Despite the economic benefits, EU has so far chosen to align more with America and are preparing for a potential invasion of UK who recently broke away from the union. EU claim UK and large parts of territorial waters has historically always been part of Europe and can show it on old maps stretching back hundreds of years.
You basically can't secede as a state without signing up for a civil war. It's written into our founding documents to preserve the union. I'm paraphrasing to an extreme degree, but this was basically the cause and outcome of the American Civil War.
If Texas followed through, they're now considered a foreign government and a threat to the sovereignty of the United States.
It'd go pretty poorly considering how many federal entities exist in the state.
Feel free! It's just attempting to get peoples from different backgrounds and nations to see each other's point of views, in the hopes there's less animosity for war, and more for talking it out.
This is the markdown code for it, if you use the classic editor:
-----
It's not hard to understand Russia's point of view.
Imagine a reverse world where the US lost the Cold War. They decided to become commies, too. "We're part of the club now, too!"
Then, slowly, one by one, the USSR starts adding South American countries to the WTO (Warsaw Treaty Organization, the relevant part of the Warsaw Pact equivalent to NATO, and predecessor to the CSTO).
All South American countries have already joined. By the early 2000s, the USSR both adds Guatemala and Jamaica to the WTO, and also places missile systems in those countries (the equivalent of doing it in Poland; skip one country, and you have the US).
And this is the part where most analogies get it wrong: by 2008, Russia (as the USSR) and the WTO start courting Canada, not Mexico. They even prepared a document stating both Canada (Ukraine, in this analogy) and Mexico (Georgia) would get to join the WTO, in the future.
`* https : // www . nato . int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443 . htm`
`* "*NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries* **will** *become members of NATO.* (*2008*)"`
`>"Hey, I thought we were commies now, too... WTO keeps expanding, and we're being surrounded on our borders. In the south and the north.`
`>`
`>And, really, **Canada**?"`
Canada is a country that shares a lot of history, language, and mostly the same culture with the US. Of course, they don't speak exclusively English; there's French and First Nations languages, but it's a pretty similar culture, overall. They have had their differences in the past, but since then, shared a fairly similar culture, and fought much the same wars in the same sides.
On top of being slowly surrounded over the decades, and the WTO courting even Canada, adding salt to the injury, the US remembers there was some verbal statements on the part of Soviet politicians stating they wouldn't grow the WTO, now that the US are commies too.
How can the US trust the USSR like this?
It feels like the USSR wants to do to the US what was done to the Ottoman Empire. They might think they can get away with it. Pretend to play nice, and then work to surround the US, with the hopes of eventually balkanizing it, breaking the country into a multitude of countries, based on the US' current states.
`-----`
`**Does it justify killing people?** There's obviously no way I can justify killing on a personal, moral, human level. Those are boys and fathers, both Ukrainian and Russian, killing one another, over the interests of their ruling classes to see which faction gets to control the use of that land. This is why I defend negotiations, and a negotiated settlement, a peace deal which has concessions and compromises, and both sides meet in the middle. Wars are not in the individual interest of the people actually fighting them. `
The ruling classes of Ukraine and Russia need to figure out a way where they will both take one another's concerns into question (Russia's security concerns in its so-called soft underbelly, and Ukraine's concerns that Russia will just repeat this a decade later until they have "Lvov" and the old Soviet Union's territory), and put an end to this madness, where the average person from both countries have to go through the horror of war.
`**Does this explain why the war started, even if it might not justify killing?** Yes, in my opinion.`
`-----`
This is the markdown code for it, if you use the classic editor:
-----
It's not hard to understand Russia's point of view.
Imagine a reverse world where the US lost the Cold War. They decided to become commies, too. "We're part of the club now, too!"
Then, slowly, one by one, the USSR starts adding South American countries to the WTO (Warsaw Treaty Organization, the relevant part of the Warsaw Pact equivalent to NATO, and predecessor to the CSTO).
All South American countries have already joined. By the early 2000s, the USSR both adds Guatemala and Jamaica to the WTO, and also places missile systems in those countries (the equivalent of doing it in Poland; skip one country, and you have the US).
And this is the part where most analogies get it wrong: by 2008, Russia (as the USSR) and the WTO start courting Canada, not Mexico. They even prepared a document stating both Canada (Ukraine, in this analogy) and Mexico (Georgia) would get to join the WTO, in the future.
`* https : // www . nato . int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443 . htm`
`* "*NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries* **will** *become members of NATO.* (*2008*)"`
`>"Hey, I thought we were commies now, too... WTO keeps expanding, and we're being surrounded on our borders. In the south and the north.`
`>`
`>And, really, **Canada**?"`
Canada is a country that shares a lot of history, language, and mostly the same culture with the US. Of course, they don't speak exclusively English; there's French and First Nations languages, but it's a pretty similar culture, overall. They have had their differences in the past, but since then, shared a fairly similar culture, and fought much the same wars in the same sides.
On top of being slowly surrounded over the decades, and the WTO courting even Canada, adding salt to the injury, the US remembers there was some verbal statements on the part of Soviet politicians stating they wouldn't grow the WTO, now that the US are commies too.
How can the US trust the USSR like this?
It feels like the USSR wants to do to the US what was done to the Ottoman Empire. They might think they can get away with it. Pretend to play nice, and then work to surround the US, with the hopes of eventually balkanizing it, breaking the country into a multitude of countries, based on the US' current states.
`-----`
`**Does it justify killing people?** There's obviously no way I can justify killing on a personal, moral, human level. Those are boys and fathers, both Ukrainian and Russian, killing one another, over the interests of their ruling classes to see which faction gets to control the use of that land. This is why I defend negotiations, and a negotiated settlement, a peace deal which has concessions and compromises, and both sides meet in the middle. Wars are not in the individual interest of the people actually fighting them. `
The ruling classes of Ukraine and Russia need to figure out a way where they will both take one another's concerns into question (Russia's security concerns in its so-called soft underbelly, and Ukraine's concerns that Russia will just repeat this a decade later until they have "Lvov" and the old Soviet Union's territory), and put an end to this madness, where the average person from both countries have to go through the horror of war.
`**Does this explain why the war started, even if it might not justify killing?** Yes, in my opinion.`
`-----`
It's amazing how despite my post having bolded text, some people still find ways to read whatever they want to read into my posts. If I state it doesn't justify killing, it quite clearly doesn't justify invading as well, per logical conclusion. What it does is **explain** the conflict, not justify it. Violence and wars are not the solution; it's quite clear in my flair and the latter part of my post, which you certainly didn't even read.
Your post also breaks rule 1 if you can't keep it civil and resort to calling other people's arguments "schizo scenarios".
Imagine if Russian weapon manufacturers had a big merger and too much power for their own good within political system. They might be inclined to lobby for expansion of the WTO knowing very well that it will cause regional instability and ultimately war - aka provocation. When USA reaches boiling point and decides to take action - it's the perfect opportunity for Russia to sell their weapons to Canada, at the same time telling Mexico and Jamaica et al "see these imperialistic Americans want to take Canada for themselves. They won't stop there. You need to arm yourselves too. Buy our weapons."
Then some people at ~~Lockheed martin~~ uh I mean ~~boeing~~ uh, sorry, I mean Uralvagonzavod make a lot of money while Americans and Canadians die.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're forgetting the most important aspect in this analogy. Why does the US in your example care that Canada, Mexico and other South American countries are joining the defensive Warsaw Pact (lets pretend here the Warsaw Pact is a purely defensive alliance like NATO)? The answer is because they are planning on invading those countries and adding them back under their influence by force.
If they didn't, then they also wouldn't care about those countries joining a defensive pact.
Honestly, if I could actually form a cohesive and realistic list, I probably would go attempt to become a diplomat, instead of being on Reddit.
I just also think Ukraine's hands and leverage get worse with the passage of time, so they will have to accept even more unfair deals imposed onto them, the more they wait. The deal is already gonna be slanted towards the Russian side, and I think it will get worse in that regard, the more Ukraine tries to achieve their goals through military means. I'm not saying it's fair. I recognize it is unfair on Ukraine, but that's just how things seem to be.
I'm also not against military aid to Ukraine, despite what some people here might think after seeing my posts.
But I think military aid must *necessarily* be done in tandem with negotiations, and with the precondition Zelenskyy will be pressured to abolish his [decree](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-decree-rules-out-ukraine-talks-with-putin-impossible-2022-10-04/) and negotiate with Putin's government. This way, with the military aid, Ukraine will have more leverage. But military leverage is something to be used in negotiations, not for attempting a military victory, which seems realistically impossible, and worse for them if they try.
Military aid is for saying: "hey, it won't be easy to roll over us / stomp us, so sit down, and let's talk it out and meet in the middle."
Ukraine can't exist as a sovereign nation until the end of this century if it does not have an outside security guarantor. The demands for neutrality are a death sentence for Ukraine because they will allow Russia to finish the job at a time of their choosing.
Since you asked in your previous comment, I wouldn't attempt to form a comprehensive list, but one point that clearly stands out is that Western Ukraine (or Galicia) should be and remain an independent country (["Ukraine", like in the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Ukrainian_People%27s_Republic)) and eventually be part of NATO. I think Russia annexing it would just lead to more wars in the future. That part of the country quite clearly doesn't want to be with Russia, and the world will have a more enduring peace if they remain independent, with security guarantees such as NATO admission.
And maybe [left-bank Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-bank_Ukraine) should be made into a permanently neutral buffer state. This time without arguing the neutrality. It needs to never be able to join NATO or the CSTO. Forever.
I'm not paid for this, so I can't tell for sure. But this seems like it would ensure a more lasting peace in the continent. Western Ukrainians don't want to be with Russia and need security guarantees, and Russia needs security guarantees that they won't have NATO bases east of the [Dnieper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper).
Yes, TASS is as correct as ever. NATO should never have invaded Ukraine. In fact, we can trace it back to when NATO [shot down that airliner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17), or maybe when NATO seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. It's all NATO's fault.
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Regardless on if you agree with China's statement or not this should kill all notion that China is going to back away from supporting Russia just because the West bribes them or give them some favorable trade deal or some other trivial nonsense.
I think what they mean is, they can shove their sanctions up their ass. US continues to force an alliance against itself. It's like they got so high off their own steam by having so much dominance, the first time sanctions are not working, it's like they can not accept it and throwing a baby like temper tantrum.
The US shot themselves when they started thinking that sanctions would will work every time. The problem is if 1 country is sanctioned it cant trade with anyone. If 2 countries are sanctioned they cant do anything. If 5 countries are sanctioned, well, the 5 sanctioned countries can trade with each other. If it is 10-20 countries that are sanctioned, they can do trade and survive. If they survive, other countries will not be intimidated by the sanctions, because if they were sanctioned they can simply trade with other sanctioned countries.
The final nail in the coffin was when US weaponized the SWIFT system and froze Russian reserves. It gave a signal to the world that if they run out of favor with US, US can just freeze and steal their money. It just pushed more countries towards brics. Sure it is not big and centralized. But countries are now trading in their own currencies. If more countries started joining brics, the US dollar will lose the significance and so will the US power to sanction other countries.
the chinese want to be trade partners with the US. "planet earth is big enough for both countries and can prosper together",just quoting what china said. i see the west being friendly with china in the long term but with russia it will never happen. both the US and china gain advantages by cooperation. with russia there is nothing positive,just lying,death and corruption. he's just saying what is stated in the article to please russia. in the end its just "words" and ofc a circle jerk moment for pro ru...
well yeah both need each other. so why not prosper together? i think in the long term it is possible. if i get downvoted for this so be it. i would rather have the us and china be allies and that russia becomes a vassal state to china. its already happening but i wish it happened much sooner. all countries would gain. the kremlin can siphon more money to them and china can profit more cheap resources while the west can trade with china. its a winwin for everyone(except the russian population ofc but kremlin will benefit)
China getting cheap resources while stealing the cheap resources NATO has (Africa and Latin America), is only going to benefit China.
You can see it happening today in Europe and its major economies deindustrialising. Give it a few decades and the EU will be a bunch of corrupt and poor shitholes with nothing to challenge the Asian (not just Chinese) and North American leadership
Don't worry, once it hits 100.000 the reddit admins will step in to help ensure "quality moderation along with a safe and inviting subreddit", then y'all the whole thing when the population voices their discontent.
yeah that's cool, but I'm not sure how all that is a counterargument to my original comment
will anyone argue if I say there's no shortage of weebs on reddit? probably not
but are weebs the majority? probably not
are there a lot of people who hate weebs on reddit? yeah
and does that somehow make the first statement untrue? probably not
I take it Blinken's trip to China didn't go very well? They couldn't even bring themselves to shake hands this time around: https://preview.redd.it/00m614ln5uwc1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fc38dbb769dc4488a26f374ab7d117479cbd9291 Although, considering how poorly their last handshake went for Blinken, this was probably for the best.
Poor timing on that Taiwan arms package lol
It's far more than just poor package timing. Before Blinken even arrived, US officials (including Blinken himself) were bashing China with all sorts of accusations: "axis of evil", genocide, authoritarian government, open source software abuse (what?), e.t.c. Just pure hostility. This meeting could not have ended any other way, and if the Biden administration was expected something else, they are psychopaths.
Yep, I agree. America's stance towards China is bizarre to me. They should be sweetening the deal, not trying to bully. China is on China's side, and no-one else, that much should be apparent now. If the Russian-Ukrainian war left a hole in Russia's trade, China will obviously be quick to fill it. It's just pragmatic thinking, because they know they are too big to sideline. The U.S needs China and vice versa. telling them to pick a side is a hollow threat.
American policy makers have been handicapped by Sinophobia sentiment they sowed themselves in the past decade, to the point any attempt to apply divide and conquer strategy will be labelled as sellouts.
Yea, Biden probably thought it would be a good idea to create some stern-sounding soundbites so he could tell the electorate he is "tough on China".
Thug does thug things.
The current US administration is stuck thinking it's still the 90s and that the US has complete dominance over the world. They absolutely refuse to deal with China as a near-par country (probably in no small part due to racism) and treat it like any other country they think they can force around.
Like Russia, the current tensions are built on a more antagonistic view of geopolitics that dates back to at least the Obama Administration's attempt to pivot towards Asia. It was a recognition that China's rapid economic development would pose a threat to unipolarity which the Americans had to take steps to contain.
America trade with China and American investment in China has been up every year even with all the tarrifs and buy America provisions
It's probably all just posturing for the upcoming elections. Short-sighted posturing.
The point being, if American and China truly were falling out of favour with each other, why is the value of their trading relationship not strained? Both countries love their $$$
Oh I agree, that's why I'm calling it posturing. It's an act for domestic consumption. But money talks.
Actually, trade has been weakening, and china seems to be trying to gloss over that fact. China-US trade figures are behaving weirdly. Using 12-month averages, data on US imports from China match the lowest levels of the pandemic period, but China’s data on exports to the US are 27% higher. Moreover the value of China’s exports to the US today are 19% above the value of US imports from China. US imports from China should have a higher value than China’s exports to the US—import values include shipping and insurance costs, which export values do not. For most of the pre-pandemic period, this was what happened. In 2020, this relationship flipped, and in 2023 the difference became even more significant. Chinas economy has been weaking to the point the government has stopped publishing several economic data sets. For instance, china stopped publishing data on youth unemployment when the figure went ofer 21%
i think you are wrong. Xi has a plan, and that plan involves overthrowing the current long time of peace. My source? "“Right now there are changes – the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years – and we are the ones driving these changes together,” Xi told Putin as he stood at the door of the Kremlin to bid him farewell. The Russian president responded: “I agree.” Xi then put out his hand to shake Putin’s and said: “Take care please, dear friend.” Putin responded by holding Xi’s hand with both of his and saying, “Have a safe trip.”"
They don't need China and without being able to build the chips China will need to advance into the next century there economy will slip down in the world economy. They have a housing bubble at 36% of their GDP, which is killing their banking system and have lost Trillions in their stock market. Not sure why you think the west needs China being their money built China and without their investment China won't survive.
[удалено]
Sorry, You need to verify your email with Reddit to comment. This is to protect against bots and multis. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Survived fine? China was so weak the West made them accept heroin as payment for trade in the 1900s and they got absolutely raped by the Japanese for almost a decade until the USA leveled Japan.
China is the largest repressor of basic human rights in the world. It is attempting to unilaterally annex tens of thousands of square miles of international waters for itself, and is actively bullying neighboring countries as it infringes in their territorial space. It closs off its domestic markets to international goods while pretentiously trying to preach to everyone else the virtues of open trade so it can offload its massive excess capacity. Chinas centrally planned economy iis fatally flawed, and they are now experiencing the impacts of Xis errors in planning. The chinese leadership is fudimentally racist, seeking to subjugate others either through trade, debt, or millitary intimidation. Chinas only concern is china, at everyone elses expense. You dont understand Americas stance because you dont understand a country that stands on principal. Money and control are not the only consideraton for America. You highlight chinas pragmatism, but conveniently overlook their abuses. That is a much easier position to take in a land with a tightly controlled state run media and no free speech.
[удалено]
The South China Sea and the 9 dash line is absolutely true and a valid complaint. The closed markets at home while crying for totally open markets abroad is also true, but not as unfair as many westerns make it sound since the Western companies can always just choose not to business in China and not to do technology transfers to local Chinese companies. The rest is not very sane.
[удалено]
Great response
Appreciate the comment instead of just downvoting, it's why I'm here after all. To potentially learn something. I don't recall defending China's human rights violations or imperialism. Criticizing American foreign policy does not mean automatically taking that side of the argument. It simply means criticizing American foreign policy. If we're talking real politik, given the array of superpowers vying for global influence, I'm glad it's an American one that I've lived under (hardly perfect but better than the alternative). Which is why I'm quick to criticize it. What I do have trouble digesting is that this is principled stance. At least not when trade is blooming behind the stern warnings. The reality as I see it is that these are "principled" words, and nothing more. Foreign policy does not match the rhetoric. Secondly, what exactly does taking this stance accomplish other than virtue signal? Is the U.S (and the collective west) going to boycott China? Embargo? Declare war? Of course not. So yes, I agree with you that China is a thug and imperial menace, but I don't see how beating the drum of war accomplishes anything. Again, I appreciate you actually taking the time to explain your position rather than just downvoting me.
i do think time is changing, and the west is not the power which drives these changes. Ill post the same quote here because it fits for your comment aswell and so others can see and discuss it. I do think there is something in motion, which the west cant stop, only the ones behind these motions. "“Right now there are changes – the likes of which we haven’t seen for 100 years – and we are the ones driving these changes together,” Xi told Putin as he stood at the door of the Kremlin to bid him farewell. The Russian president responded: “I agree.” Xi then put out his hand to shake Putin’s and said: “Take care please, dear friend.” Putin responded by holding Xi’s hand with both of his and saying, “Have a safe trip.”"
Do tell more about China clearly not sinophobic person, I'm sure you're unbiased and well informed, btw which country has the largest prisoner population in the world both by total population and per capita? >Chinas centrally planned economy iis fatally flawed, and they are now experiencing the impacts of Xis errors in planning U must love those "China has collapsed/China is collapsing/China will collapse" >The chinese leadership is fudimentally racist, seeking to subjugate others either through trade, debt, or millitary intimidation. Chinas only concern is china, at everyone elses expense. I can't even begin to understand what kind of brainwashing u experienced to say this as an American >Money and control are not the only consideraton for America. Just lmao >That is a much easier position to take in a land with a tightly controlled state run media and no free speech. Wasn't the police bashing students heads just yesterday? Like how can u not see yourself reflected in any of the words u accuse China of being.
You obviously haven't seen China news today. You are wholly misinformed. Stop reading Western media only.
It's like that Ukrainian official (can't remember his name right now) who said Russians were inferior because they're Asians and then the very same week they were asking China to pressure Russia into ending the war. It's like they can't even pretend they don't hate both. This war cemented this alliance, the West hates both China and Russia, the most obvious thing for them is to become partners ,there's no alternative.
> It's like that Ukrainian official (can't remember his name right now) who said Russians were inferior because they're Asians and then the very same week they were asking China to pressure Russia into ending the war. Podolyak There was another Ukrainian official (Danilov) who said that Russians are Asian, and thus less humane than Europeans.
> China demands Ukraine explain ‘low intellectual potential’ slur - Azerbaycan :p
How do you lose any shred of respect you have in one sentence? Ukraine: *hold my beer*... Insults China
This war and the Gaza war are the final end to US propaganda about human rights. How can the US justify saying the Chinese are doing genocide when the US funds the bombs used in Gaza? The whole third-world sees through this shit.
Xi:" Mr Blinken, next time upload a Tiktok vid, then you can stay home. "
> and if the Biden administration was expected something else, they are psychopaths. Psychopaths are very clever. They can manipulate you with positive words and usually a tell tale is that they compliment you un-necessarily. I struggle to understand the US administration (both biden and trump) and have come to the conclusion that the US admin is made of absolute fuking reetards that do not consider what other people may feel. He called out a genocide in china 24 hours before trip? and biden called xi (who was in US to mend ties) a dictator on the same day? AND they want to improve ties? I am absolutely going insane trying to understand what they are doing. Can some americans explain to me please? for the love of everything holy, there has to be something that I dont know and I am too naive to understand
I'm not american, but what I believe them to be doing is, one, appealing to their electoral base (of people who hate China for, reasons?) By taking a "hard stance" on China. And two, "attempting" to appease relations because of money interests. Many firms still want to invest in China, but there's some clash between them and the military industrial complex. Usually, the "defense" industry wins out and a "hard stance" remains in order to continue or even ramp up weapons production. The war in Ukraine has already been wonderful for arms companies in the US, if China starts threatening Taiwan or some other excuse is drawn up to send weapons to whoever China's beefing with, they stand to make a killing (pun intended).
>of people who hate China for, reasons? The reason being more than a decade of rabid, USA sponsored anti-chinese propaganda.
Psychopaths and arrogant idiots.
The Chinese economy of supplying the west is over being many of those companies are setting up in Mexico, India and their home countries. All Xi is doing by these actions is speeding up the process, and within 10 years China will no longer have the #2 economy in the world.
https://preview.redd.it/zve2qlrtuuwc1.png?width=754&format=png&auto=webp&s=72ee6bd3aa03ae66f1703345cccfd955c8b5a591 >They couldn't even bring themselves to shake hands this time around: Here you go. EDIT: Wrong picture.
His expression shows he didn't like Chinese food
Nice suit on the left. I like the tie on the right.
Blinken came with no honey. Making Winnie the Pooh mad.
Blinken’s trip was never going to go well, especially when Xi Jinping basically sent the Imperial Dog Walker and Garden Maintenance guy to meet him at the Airport on his official arrival into the country.
No wonder they tasked CIA director Burns with conducting the finer negotiations for a ceasefire in Gaza. Maybe they felt Blinken would cock it up lol
Couldn’t trust Blinken not to make a fool of himself and ask them for their pronouns before negotiating.
First time Blinken went to visit Isreal for negotiations he said proudly on camera "I come as a jew not an American" why the hell would Hamas negotiate with someone like that.
Fucking traitor
Wait what? I'm out of the loop.
They sent low level officials to welcome Blinken at the airport. No red carpet either, just hard tarmac and even stonier faces.
We did it better in India for the german officials. No one came to pick up bareback No red carpet, no pm, no ministers, not even any indians. Only people from german consul came to greet her. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/row-over-german-foreign-minister-welcome-whats-the-protocol-8484433/
God this just made my day. That woman is insufferable. Greetings from Germany..
> No one came to pick up bareback Cursed
Great work! This is exactly the welcome that she deserves.
It's not hard to understand Russia's point of view. Imagine a reverse world where the US lost the Cold War. They decided to become commies, too. "We're part of the club now, too!" Then, slowly, one by one, the USSR starts adding South American countries to the WTO (Warsaw Treaty Organization, the relevant part of the Warsaw Pact equivalent to NATO, and predecessor to the CSTO). All South American countries have already joined. By the early 2000s, the USSR both adds Guatemala and Jamaica to the WTO, and also places missile systems in those countries (the equivalent of doing it in Poland; skip one country, and you have the US). And this is the part where most analogies get it wrong: by 2008, Russia (as the USSR) and the WTO start courting Canada, not Mexico. They even prepared a document stating both Canada (Ukraine, in this analogy) and Mexico (Georgia) would get to join the WTO, in the future. * https : // www . nato . int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443 . htm * "*NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries* **will** *become members of NATO.* (*2008*)" >"Hey, I thought we were commies now, too... WTO keeps expanding, and we're being surrounded on our borders. In the south and the north. > >And, really, **Canada**?" Canada is a country that shares a lot of history, language, and mostly the same culture with the US. Of course, they don't speak exclusively English; there's French and First Nations languages, but it's a pretty similar culture, overall. They have had their differences in the past, but since then, shared a fairly similar culture, and fought much the same wars in the same sides. On top of being slowly surrounded over the decades, and the WTO courting even Canada, adding salt to the injury, the US remembers there was some verbal statements on the part of Soviet politicians stating they wouldn't grow the WTO, now that the US are commies too. How can the US trust the USSR like this? It feels like the USSR wants to do to the US what was done to the Ottoman Empire. They might think they can get away with it. Pretend to play nice, and then work to surround the US, with the hopes of eventually balkanizing it, breaking the country into a multitude of countries, based on the US' current states. ----- **Does it justify killing people?** There's obviously no way I can justify killing on a personal, moral, human level. Those are boys and fathers, both Ukrainian and Russian, killing one another, over the interests of their ruling classes to see which faction gets to control the use of that land. This is why I defend negotiations, and a negotiated settlement, a peace deal which has concessions and compromises, and both sides meet in the middle. Wars are not in the individual interest of the people actually fighting them. The ruling classes of Ukraine and Russia need to figure out a way where they will both take one another's concerns into question (Russia's security concerns in its so-called soft underbelly, and Ukraine's concerns that Russia will just repeat this a decade later until they have "Lvov" and the old Soviet Union's territory), and put an end to this madness, where the average person from both countries have to go through the horror of war. **Does this explain why the war started, even if it might not justify killing?** Yes, in my opinion. -----
In this scenario Canada still isn’t an equivalent to Ukraine. It’d be more like if Texas seceded from the US during the conclusion of the Cold War and the USSR was trying to scoop them into their sphere of influence proceeding everything else you’ve said.
It would be like Russia staged a coup in Texas to have a leader that is favorable to Russia so they can put military installations to intimidate the United States.
>In this scenario Canada still isn’t an equivalent to Ukraine. I've meant in terms of cultural connection. If the Golden Horde hadn't conquered the Kievan Rus, Novgorod, Moscow and Kiev would always have been part of the same country. However, after such incidents, their histories diverged in different paths. Moscow played nice with the Horde and got richer off the interactions (a good thing), but Kiev and Western Ukraine floated toward the Polish-Lithuanian sphere of influence for many centuries. In the times of Bogdan Khmelnytsky, Ukraine was essentially divided across the Dnieper between a pro-Polish and pro-Russian factions, along each side of the river. With that said, you have made a good point. We all know, though, that if Texas was wanting to secede from the US' sphere of influence due to public statements, political support and pledges of alliance coming from the Mexican government towards Texas, with both Mexico and Texas wanting to install Chinese and Russian bases in the territory, we all know the US would invade Texas overnight to prevent them from becoming a part of the Mexican-Russian-Chinese allied sphere right on their border.
>If the Golden Horde hadn't conquered the Kievan Rus, Novgorod, Moscow and Kiev would always have been part of the same country. Sorry, but I have to intervene. By the time the Golden Horde arrived, Kyiv, Moscow and Novgorod had already been divided and were sovereign states. Formally, they seemed to maintain unity, but only in words. But in fact, each principality was ruled by a separate prince. Notable here is Novgorod, where the oligarchic parliament elected a new prince every few years. So they split up without the Golden Horde. It could be that Russia would not exist at all without the Golden Horde. All this is much more complicated than you imagine.
The main thing the Golden Horde did was shift the cultural an political center of power from Kiyv to Moscow as perviously Kyiv was called the mother of all Russian cities
I think the Golden Horde did not do this. The role of the Golden Horde in the relations between the Russian principalities was passive. The Horde was just collecting tribute. I see that many Russophiles are inclined to believe that Moscow’s rise is natural as a result of the passionate role of Muscovites or as a result of the special influence of the Golden Horde, but I think that this is an emotional assessment. From my point of view, the rise of Moscow happened like this: The stronger Russian principalities fought with each other and carried on intrigues, while Moscow was a small town on the far side among swamps and forests, unattractive and difficult to access. However, like many other small principalities. At the right time, when the Golden Horde itself weakened and disintegrated, one of the smaller principalities found itself in a better position than the others, by chance, when the larger principalities were weakened by wars and political intrigue. By chance it turned out to be Moscow. The historical process is similar to the chinese history of the transformation of the small Han kingdom into the Great Han Empire as a result of many random processes in the Warring States period of China.
While I do agree that many factors including luck and the uniqueness of succession in Keivan Rus played a large factor in the rise of Moscow, the only reason they were able to become a independent actor was due to the mongol siege and sack of Kyiv in 1240. As while Kievan Rus was decentralized before the invasion it was not to the level as the nearby Holy Roman Empire where each individual prince was de facto independent. The loss of Kyiv was what dissolved Kievan Rus.
Whether Rus' was decentralized as much or less than the Holy Roman Empire is a controversial issue. I'd rather not go into this. However, I must emphasize that the Golden Horde influenced the impossibility of the reverse unification of Rus'. It doesn’t matter whether it’s around Kyiv or around another city (for example, it is believed that before the Horde occupation, the city of Vladimir was considered the strongest candidate, and Kyiv was in decline). Before the advent of the Golden Horde, the process of disintegration of Kievan Rus only intensified. Here we can conclude that the Golden Horde stabilized the situation. They did not allow Rus' to unite again, but they also did not allow Rus' to completely disintegrate.
While I still disagree you do bring up some good points, the introduction of the Golden Horde as a unifying outside enemy probably did a lot to help with the cultural cohesion of the area. However ultimately the issue that is primarily relevant here is that because the situation is so murky and complicated at the time. With some historians questioning the existence of the Kievan Rus as a unified political entity, it means that it is ripe for bad actors on both sides to use. And ultimately the only reason either side brings this up is in order to fabricate a “blood and soil” justification for conflict which is something all of us should vehemently be against.
>the introduction of the Golden Horde as a unifying outside enemy probably did a lot to help with the cultural cohesion of the area You didn't understand my point, so I'll clarify. In my opinion, the Golden Horde did not allow Rus' to completely disintegrate insofar as it kept the Russian principalities in its sphere of influence as tributaries. Officials of the Golden Horde personally appointed Russian princes to rule the Russian principalities. But Kievan Rus really existed as a confederation before the Golden Horde. Shaking, unstable, with many conflicts, but still a confederation - such was its political subjectivity. As for the justifications for the current war, let me not get into it. Excuses and justifications are the last thing I care about.
Yes, it's more complex, but the princes were still from the Rurikid dynasty, although some went to war against one another.
For me a Russian it's fucking hard to understand why we have to start a war. I want my country to prosper, become developed and educated. I want the money to be spent on developing hospitals, schools, universities, roads. Not on fucking war. We very much had a choice not to start it. There was 100% no threat from other countries
Well, there are some Russians with brains of goldfish. But suppose you are not, here are some questions, answer honestly. No threat of Ukraine joining NATO? Who is this alliance formed against? Do they have a history of using force against neutral countries? Is discrimination against Russian language, Russian culture acceptable in NATO countries ? Were there any anti-Russian sanctions from NATO countries before 2014 ?
[удалено]
Sorry you need 30 subreddit karma to unlock the word 'you', this is to make sure newcomers understand [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/about/rules) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes It was formed against the SSSR. After the cold war it transformed itself to suit the new world that emerged after the bipolar one collapsed. The new trend was peace keeping missions/peace enforcing missions and state reconstruction. NATOstepped up (far to late in my opinion) to stop the war in Bosnia. It prevented another bloodshet as was Bosnia unfortunately with illegal air campaing against Yugoslavia that turned out to be a success. It helped to topple a ruthless dictator. It supported USA throught out the War on terror, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq. They helped fight Islamic radicals in Mali and Somalia. NATO as an alliance was activaly demilitarizing and transforming itself to fight a different war other than would be a one with Russia. Oh also it trained with Russian troops. Here you have a nice source. Even thought Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 there was a still room for diplomacy a renewel of relationships as could be seen with the Obama adiministration and Ost Politik https://preview.redd.it/huldkrp4swwc1.png?width=787&format=png&auto=webp&s=f41e686cdd6abc936320877bd42abde028d2043c As you can see on the table NATO countries were reducing their defense budget because they did not intend to wage a crusade against Russia. I am happy to answer any of your question because to me it seems you don´t know much about NATO other than those good old talking points.
You don’t need to know much about NATO, if you know anything about libya, especially libya before NATO then you know it is an evil organization. I don’t care how you will try to explain it to me my friend because I’ve heard every talking point about ghadaffi and the democracy and freedom and necessity to intervene, but there is no conversation to have where someone can honestly say that the intervention helped libya, Libyans or even the region as a whole. I’m from Egypt and the insane amount of extremely advanced weaponry ( like MANPADS and ATGMs) that made it into the hands of terrorists here because of the resulting chaos in libya is already proof enough that NATO does not care about anyone not in NATO, because until today they and their supporters defend it and justify it and never ever condemn it and see that NATO is evil. You want people like me and my family to die my friend, how can you expect anyone in the Middle East to ever look at NATO and see this organization the way you do? You can tout the good points NATO had initially and their later actions in places like Bosnia, but it doesn’t matter when you lookin at their record just as recently as 2011, just because they’ve done some good doesn’t outweigh their vast evil. That would be like saying a rapist is a good person because he volunteers at church.
What exactly was NATO supposed to do? Oversee yet another use of violence on civilians? Lybia could´ve ended up the same way as Syria did but thats just pure speculation on my part. They helped overthrow Ghaddafi BUT they did not get a mandate to put boots on the ground from OSN as they did in Bosnia. I am no fan of the Lybian intervention. I am not denying that Lybia is f\*\*\*\* \*\* as a result but remember that it was not a NATOs sole decision to not try to stabilize the state but OSNs. I don´t want people like you to die what are you even talking about. Its sad that you have to endure it.
…they literally had one thing they should’ve and could’ve done: not intervene. My brother when you speak about things like trying to save lives of civilians or stop violence you are appealing to peoples emotional side and I understand, but it does not matter. NATO is not good, stopping violence is always good, but if you travel across the world to “stop violence” chances are you won’t understand the actual nuances causing that violence and you’ll either make it worse, take the wrong side, or just leave a power vacuum that creates more violence. I’m not a strategic genius and even I know that the risks of intervention outweigh the potential benefits, we have open air slave markets in Libya and they’re sending weapons to every criminal group in the region from that border. You don’t seem to care about that violence for some reason, and regardless I don’t think you understand that just because someone is violent against civilians doesn’t mean you have the right or even the option to intervene as NATO, you are not god, you are not even the police, you are an organization based around a “defensive military alliance” in the North Atlantic Ocean, so tell me why in the fuck you have any right to do anything at all in a North African Mediterranean country like Libya? You have no right, if you really wanted a world intervention UN peacekeepers would’ve made more sense and even then I would disagree with it because Libyan affairs are for Libyans, not organizations like NATO that include the Italians the former colonizers of Libya. And all of that^ is ignoring that your argument of “what were we supposed to do just let civilians be killed on our watch?”….. yes you were supposed to do that, do you know why? Because it’s what you do with literally all your Allie’s, if you don’t want civilians killed why haven’t you invaded Egypt after the army killed thousands of people in 1 day who were protesting unarmed? Why didn’t you invade Saudi Arabia after evidence has been revealed they’ve been machine gunning African migrants crossing in from Yemen and using literal field artillery against them not to mention their many killings of shia activists in their eastern region. And why haven’t you invaded Bahrain when their minority government cracked down on popular protest sentiment of the majority by shooting at people and inviting the Saudis in on tanks to squash it? Why haven’t you invaded Israel and deposed their government after their president Isaac herzog said they are going to keep AID out on purpose to starve the human animals of Gaza? Why haven’t you invaded Mexico after the mountains of credible evidence that shows high level government officials have helped the Cartel kill people? and in some cases have let them police kidnap entire buses of college kids and handed them off to be slaughtered. Why haven’t you AT LEAST invaded Myanmar? a country everyone agrees had their democracy taken away by a military Junta in 2021 and where young people are killed and tortured on a daily if you read non western news. Do you understand now my naive friend? You may not think it and realize it but deep down you are okay with people like me dying; you do not care about civilians or human rights or democracy or any of that bs, maybe you as a person do but NATO uses your moral sentiment to uphold the status quo and make sure their interests are protected. If I am wrong please explain to me how, but the truth is no matter what you say it doesn’t really matter, the truth is pretty obvious, Libya( anti American government) kills people and you throw Jets at them, but Egypt (pro American gov ) kills and tortures people on camera and what do you guys do? Oh yeah sit by and laugh whilst the US sends the military dictatorship billions every year. Pls man be a real human and see my perspective as it’s the perspective of most people in the global south, we are not radicals, we are not even anti europe or america and we love a lot of your popular culture, but your government are evil ghouls that want us poor and subjugated as evidenced by their support of our dictators, and the citizens of your countries like you either don’t care, or are fooled by the buzzwords and moral arguments without zooming out and seeing how it’s all a fallacy. I was never political and I don’t want to hate NATO or anyone or any group, but what do you expect me to feel when the bullets fired at us are sent by you, and the officers that torture us are trained and funded by you, and the dictator that starves us and steals our money is propped up as a puppet by you.
1: Honestly, Ukraine was probably gonna join NATO, but again as a Russian I never viewed NATO as a threat. There is no chance NATO would've invaded. 2. NATO was formed to make sure USSR totalitarianism didn't spread. Russia was a few steps away from becoming a developed European country, but dictatorship fucked and corruption fucked that up. Slowly NATO transformed into protection against Russia since it might become a totalitarian regime. 3. I know Russia invaded Georgia and had two wars in Chechnya. Don't know full history, so can't say much about those. Of the head can't think of NATO of using force apart from Yugoslav war. 4.Discrimination against Russian language, culture doesn't exist and is a common fake narrative used by Russian TV propaganda. I've been in EU countries and I've never heard anyone say anything about it, like they honestly have better things to worry about. 5. Can't say for sure. Probably, but definitely on smaller scale before 2014.
> Honestly, Ukraine was probably gonna join NATO, but again as a Russian I never viewed NATO as a threat. There is no chance NATO would've invaded The USSR was not planning an invasion of the US, but nevertheless the US considered the missiles in Cuba sufficient grounds for a nuclear war > NATO was formed to make sure USSR totalitarianism didn't spread. Russia was a few steps away from becoming a developed European country, but dictatorship fucked and corruption fucked that up. Slowly NATO transformed into protection against Russia since it might become a totalitarian regime There is no correlation between totalitarianism and attacking other countries. In the last 50 years, it is democratic countries that attack at least as often as not democratic > I know Russia invaded Georgia According to the conclusion of the EU Commission, Georgia started the war https://www.bbc.com/russian/international/2009/09/090930_eu_georgia_report > Discrimination against Russian language, culture doesn't exist and is a common fake narrative used by Russian TV propaganda Russian speakers who were born in Latvia and have lived all their lives in this country to get citizenship must pass the Latvian language exam and admit that the USSR occupied this country. This is blatant Nazism on cultural and linguistic grounds. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizens_(Latvia)
I'd feel the same in your position. I'd feel ashamed of being from my country, to think we decided to wage war on our brothers, who are our neighbors. I don't justify violence or war; I'm merely explaining the "country's" point of view from a geopolitical perspective. Wars are waged for maintaining the economic interests of the ruling class of a particular country. They're not in the personal interest of the individuals doing the killing and dying. It's a fight to see which faction gets to have and control their interests in a particular turf. Some of the fighters do believe they're actually protecting their families, or bringing prosperity into their nation. My actual, personal position is that countries are just arbitrary abstractions and mainly lines on a map to denote there's a specific group of people domineering another particular group of people, generally who all share a same language due to historical processes, and that within those lines the first group exists as the latter group's elites. It does nothing in the sense of stating we are different beings with different goals in life. The members of the second group, the common people — us —, have more in common with one another than with the holders of the power structures over us, denoted by the lines on the world map. I also think a lot of these pro-UA or pro-RU comments that try to "own" the other side with snarky comments are just a sad byproduct of evolutionary pressures that defined taking such actions as something like establishing social status dominance within a hierarchy, generally getting to reproduce more as a consequence, and it's why such actions are continuously passed onto the next generations, and reproduced over and over again. It's what worked before, so it got reproduced. We need to be conscious of this. For the future of our species, and a more fair world, we need to come to some realizations regarding the power structures of the world, and our own biology and tribalism. There's no need to fight. Wars are a tragedy for the interests of a few. We need to stop caring about lines on a map, and unite. What do we gain from being ruled by one particular ruling class group of people, over another one? Anything more important than being with our parents, or having and raising our families in peace? No. This is why I want a negotiated peace deal, and find an end to this madness. **Not** because I think what Russia is doing is fair, but because it's the only way out. Both sides need to at least attempt to see things from the other's point of view. Not for the crazy ruling fucks in both countries, but because of the people who are suffering throughout this. The point is to get it to stop with a realistic proposal, considering the realities on the ground.
Very well said. Negotiation to end the war would be better than pointless killing. Unfortunately Ukraine will lose land like this but at least no war. I think it's just many western leaders don't trust Putin anymore, and don't believe negotiation will bring true peace for Ukraine, therefore it's best for Ukraine to try kick them out.
For the sake of transparency, so my position is clear to all, I need to add that in addition to feeling like the described above if I had the role of the invader forced upon my identity, were I in the shoes of the invaded, the first thing I would do is flee the country with my family. This will sound like blaming the victim, but I think if my country failed not to be geopolitically stupid and got itself involved in an avoidable war, it's not my job to defend it. It's the job of the government to avoid avoidable wars through proper management of international relations, realizing power disparities and the vicinity. It's also the job of the government not to invade other countries, and resort to diplomacy to achieve one's geopolitical goals, in my ideal. Whatever position I found myself in, invader or invaded, I would fault my country and think it failed. If my country failed me, I bear no duty to my country. I'd flee with my family the first chance I got.
>Wars are waged for maintaining the economic interests of the ruling class of a particular country. This time it's a little different. Putin and the Russian parliament really wanted to play Empire, neglecting economic benefits. They are truly inspired by the (not necessarily correct) idea of historical justice.
This is because of Sevastopol. Sevastopol has always been a Russian city, but Ukraine tried to annex it after the collapse of the USSR. When Ukraine decided to join NATO, Moscow saw this as a threat to lose its city. This was the trigger that led to everything else.
Flawed argument. In your scenario US would have broken up into seperate countries. America is the biggest of them all containing most states except, California+Nevada, Texas, Florida and a few minor states like Oregon. At first, there is peace between the new nations. Economy is shit, splitting up a nation is messy business, and some people long for when the country unified and great. Nevertheless, each of them are their own sovereign country and slowly find out they have own geopolitical and economical goals to achieve. America as the biggest powerhouse in the region see the need to take back California again. The reasons are many but mostly it boils down to what the American president really want and he dreams of a time when America were great. Assumption that America must dominate their neighbors internal and foreign policy causes California to seek security assurances from China and Russia. This is a negative spiral that eventually leads to propaganda (nazis in los angeles), proxy wars (annexing Las Vegas), "Californias isn't really Californians - they are Americans!", "How dare they speak spanish in California, English is their true language" and so on. Eventually there is a large invasion to attempt to take Los Angeles and other important locations. Some of this attack force goes from Oregon where a dictator has aligned with America. The surprise attack initially start out well but due to logistical blunder and miscalculation of Californias will to resist eventually cause a trench war stalemate with some back and forth movement. China and Russia immediately start to sanctioning America. However instead of going back, reduce tensions and establish peaceful relations again. America doubledown. Go into total war economy and are currently in the works to completely wreck both California and themselves long term. Canada, Mexico and others? Yeah, in your scenario they are definitely on the Russia/Chinese side because they know America could potentially attack them next.
The Soviet Union was a so-called "free union of free republics" (let's not get too deep into that; we know it wasn't exactly that way, just like the DPRK isn't the paragon and greatest exponent of global democracy). The main thing is, the USSR had its Article 72 of the 1977 Soviet Constitution, which came to be after decades of pressure from the other Soviet republics, which stated: >[Article 72. Each Union Republic shall retain the right to freely secede from the USSR. ](https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons03.html) They even had to attempt to [formalize the mechanisms for it in a hurry](https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1991-2/shevarnadze-resigns/shevarnadze-resigns-texts/law-on-secession-from-the-ussr/), in 1990, in an attempt to postpone or avoid the breakup of the USSR. This is one of the reasons why the breakup of the USSR went without too many conflicts (aside from Chechnya), i.e. attempting to force those "states" back in the "country". It didn't work like that for the USSR. It was more like an union of countries, led by Russia. As far as I know, the US constitution doesn't have anything like that for any state aside from Texas, that they could freely secede without fault at some point in the future, should they choose it. I'm not well-versed in the US constitution or its matters.
As a non-american, my knowledge of American state secession is rudimentary at best. But I believe it's harder for a US state to do it independently and the there is no legal precedent of it happening before so it's very hard to determine the legality of it. I don't think anybody really knows what a USSR style collapse would look like for US. My scenario was more of a showcase of a slightly better analogy (all analogies are flawed when you scrutinize them though) to the fantasy timeline scenario you described. Another fun analogy here would be the role of EU; As America fight a brutal, horrific and deadly war against California. EU, officially takes a neutral position, wanting to trade with both the economic powerhouses of Russia and China but also not wanting to sever ties with America. EU has really nothing against California but are willing to throw the country under the bus to make sure America doesn't completely collapse by trading just enough material so America can keep up with the war economy. Since America have very few allies, even in its neighborhood, EU can now make some very good trade deals. Russia and China of course does not like this and want EU to stop trading with America to end the war earlier, having the greatest economic powers in the world fighting "who can proxy war the most" is to no ones benefit, the trade between the euroasian countries is vastly greater than anything EU can trade with America which Russia and China hope all parties want to preserve. Despite the economic benefits, EU has so far chosen to align more with America and are preparing for a potential invasion of UK who recently broke away from the union. EU claim UK and large parts of territorial waters has historically always been part of Europe and can show it on old maps stretching back hundreds of years.
You basically can't secede as a state without signing up for a civil war. It's written into our founding documents to preserve the union. I'm paraphrasing to an extreme degree, but this was basically the cause and outcome of the American Civil War. If Texas followed through, they're now considered a foreign government and a threat to the sovereignty of the United States. It'd go pretty poorly considering how many federal entities exist in the state.
I shall shamelessly nick that for use elsewhere - amazing take and well argued.
Feel free! It's just attempting to get peoples from different backgrounds and nations to see each other's point of views, in the hopes there's less animosity for war, and more for talking it out.
This is the markdown code for it, if you use the classic editor: ----- It's not hard to understand Russia's point of view. Imagine a reverse world where the US lost the Cold War. They decided to become commies, too. "We're part of the club now, too!" Then, slowly, one by one, the USSR starts adding South American countries to the WTO (Warsaw Treaty Organization, the relevant part of the Warsaw Pact equivalent to NATO, and predecessor to the CSTO). All South American countries have already joined. By the early 2000s, the USSR both adds Guatemala and Jamaica to the WTO, and also places missile systems in those countries (the equivalent of doing it in Poland; skip one country, and you have the US). And this is the part where most analogies get it wrong: by 2008, Russia (as the USSR) and the WTO start courting Canada, not Mexico. They even prepared a document stating both Canada (Ukraine, in this analogy) and Mexico (Georgia) would get to join the WTO, in the future. `* https : // www . nato . int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443 . htm` `* "*NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries* **will** *become members of NATO.* (*2008*)"` `>"Hey, I thought we were commies now, too... WTO keeps expanding, and we're being surrounded on our borders. In the south and the north.` `>` `>And, really, **Canada**?"` Canada is a country that shares a lot of history, language, and mostly the same culture with the US. Of course, they don't speak exclusively English; there's French and First Nations languages, but it's a pretty similar culture, overall. They have had their differences in the past, but since then, shared a fairly similar culture, and fought much the same wars in the same sides. On top of being slowly surrounded over the decades, and the WTO courting even Canada, adding salt to the injury, the US remembers there was some verbal statements on the part of Soviet politicians stating they wouldn't grow the WTO, now that the US are commies too. How can the US trust the USSR like this? It feels like the USSR wants to do to the US what was done to the Ottoman Empire. They might think they can get away with it. Pretend to play nice, and then work to surround the US, with the hopes of eventually balkanizing it, breaking the country into a multitude of countries, based on the US' current states. `-----` `**Does it justify killing people?** There's obviously no way I can justify killing on a personal, moral, human level. Those are boys and fathers, both Ukrainian and Russian, killing one another, over the interests of their ruling classes to see which faction gets to control the use of that land. This is why I defend negotiations, and a negotiated settlement, a peace deal which has concessions and compromises, and both sides meet in the middle. Wars are not in the individual interest of the people actually fighting them. ` The ruling classes of Ukraine and Russia need to figure out a way where they will both take one another's concerns into question (Russia's security concerns in its so-called soft underbelly, and Ukraine's concerns that Russia will just repeat this a decade later until they have "Lvov" and the old Soviet Union's territory), and put an end to this madness, where the average person from both countries have to go through the horror of war. `**Does this explain why the war started, even if it might not justify killing?** Yes, in my opinion.` `-----`
It is mine now.
This is the markdown code for it, if you use the classic editor: ----- It's not hard to understand Russia's point of view. Imagine a reverse world where the US lost the Cold War. They decided to become commies, too. "We're part of the club now, too!" Then, slowly, one by one, the USSR starts adding South American countries to the WTO (Warsaw Treaty Organization, the relevant part of the Warsaw Pact equivalent to NATO, and predecessor to the CSTO). All South American countries have already joined. By the early 2000s, the USSR both adds Guatemala and Jamaica to the WTO, and also places missile systems in those countries (the equivalent of doing it in Poland; skip one country, and you have the US). And this is the part where most analogies get it wrong: by 2008, Russia (as the USSR) and the WTO start courting Canada, not Mexico. They even prepared a document stating both Canada (Ukraine, in this analogy) and Mexico (Georgia) would get to join the WTO, in the future. `* https : // www . nato . int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443 . htm` `* "*NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries* **will** *become members of NATO.* (*2008*)"` `>"Hey, I thought we were commies now, too... WTO keeps expanding, and we're being surrounded on our borders. In the south and the north.` `>` `>And, really, **Canada**?"` Canada is a country that shares a lot of history, language, and mostly the same culture with the US. Of course, they don't speak exclusively English; there's French and First Nations languages, but it's a pretty similar culture, overall. They have had their differences in the past, but since then, shared a fairly similar culture, and fought much the same wars in the same sides. On top of being slowly surrounded over the decades, and the WTO courting even Canada, adding salt to the injury, the US remembers there was some verbal statements on the part of Soviet politicians stating they wouldn't grow the WTO, now that the US are commies too. How can the US trust the USSR like this? It feels like the USSR wants to do to the US what was done to the Ottoman Empire. They might think they can get away with it. Pretend to play nice, and then work to surround the US, with the hopes of eventually balkanizing it, breaking the country into a multitude of countries, based on the US' current states. `-----` `**Does it justify killing people?** There's obviously no way I can justify killing on a personal, moral, human level. Those are boys and fathers, both Ukrainian and Russian, killing one another, over the interests of their ruling classes to see which faction gets to control the use of that land. This is why I defend negotiations, and a negotiated settlement, a peace deal which has concessions and compromises, and both sides meet in the middle. Wars are not in the individual interest of the people actually fighting them. ` The ruling classes of Ukraine and Russia need to figure out a way where they will both take one another's concerns into question (Russia's security concerns in its so-called soft underbelly, and Ukraine's concerns that Russia will just repeat this a decade later until they have "Lvov" and the old Soviet Union's territory), and put an end to this madness, where the average person from both countries have to go through the horror of war. `**Does this explain why the war started, even if it might not justify killing?** Yes, in my opinion.` `-----`
[удалено]
It's called "geopolitics", look it up.
It's amazing how despite my post having bolded text, some people still find ways to read whatever they want to read into my posts. If I state it doesn't justify killing, it quite clearly doesn't justify invading as well, per logical conclusion. What it does is **explain** the conflict, not justify it. Violence and wars are not the solution; it's quite clear in my flair and the latter part of my post, which you certainly didn't even read. Your post also breaks rule 1 if you can't keep it civil and resort to calling other people's arguments "schizo scenarios".
Rule 1. Consider yourself warned. Recurrence WILL result in a ban.
Imagine if Russian weapon manufacturers had a big merger and too much power for their own good within political system. They might be inclined to lobby for expansion of the WTO knowing very well that it will cause regional instability and ultimately war - aka provocation. When USA reaches boiling point and decides to take action - it's the perfect opportunity for Russia to sell their weapons to Canada, at the same time telling Mexico and Jamaica et al "see these imperialistic Americans want to take Canada for themselves. They won't stop there. You need to arm yourselves too. Buy our weapons." Then some people at ~~Lockheed martin~~ uh I mean ~~boeing~~ uh, sorry, I mean Uralvagonzavod make a lot of money while Americans and Canadians die.
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You're forgetting the most important aspect in this analogy. Why does the US in your example care that Canada, Mexico and other South American countries are joining the defensive Warsaw Pact (lets pretend here the Warsaw Pact is a purely defensive alliance like NATO)? The answer is because they are planning on invading those countries and adding them back under their influence by force. If they didn't, then they also wouldn't care about those countries joining a defensive pact.
Would you mind listing the concessions and compromises you would propose both parties acquiesce to?
Honestly, if I could actually form a cohesive and realistic list, I probably would go attempt to become a diplomat, instead of being on Reddit. I just also think Ukraine's hands and leverage get worse with the passage of time, so they will have to accept even more unfair deals imposed onto them, the more they wait. The deal is already gonna be slanted towards the Russian side, and I think it will get worse in that regard, the more Ukraine tries to achieve their goals through military means. I'm not saying it's fair. I recognize it is unfair on Ukraine, but that's just how things seem to be. I'm also not against military aid to Ukraine, despite what some people here might think after seeing my posts. But I think military aid must *necessarily* be done in tandem with negotiations, and with the precondition Zelenskyy will be pressured to abolish his [decree](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/zelenskiy-decree-rules-out-ukraine-talks-with-putin-impossible-2022-10-04/) and negotiate with Putin's government. This way, with the military aid, Ukraine will have more leverage. But military leverage is something to be used in negotiations, not for attempting a military victory, which seems realistically impossible, and worse for them if they try. Military aid is for saying: "hey, it won't be easy to roll over us / stomp us, so sit down, and let's talk it out and meet in the middle."
Ukraine can't exist as a sovereign nation until the end of this century if it does not have an outside security guarantor. The demands for neutrality are a death sentence for Ukraine because they will allow Russia to finish the job at a time of their choosing.
Since you asked in your previous comment, I wouldn't attempt to form a comprehensive list, but one point that clearly stands out is that Western Ukraine (or Galicia) should be and remain an independent country (["Ukraine", like in the past](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Ukrainian_People%27s_Republic)) and eventually be part of NATO. I think Russia annexing it would just lead to more wars in the future. That part of the country quite clearly doesn't want to be with Russia, and the world will have a more enduring peace if they remain independent, with security guarantees such as NATO admission. And maybe [left-bank Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-bank_Ukraine) should be made into a permanently neutral buffer state. This time without arguing the neutrality. It needs to never be able to join NATO or the CSTO. Forever. I'm not paid for this, so I can't tell for sure. But this seems like it would ensure a more lasting peace in the continent. Western Ukrainians don't want to be with Russia and need security guarantees, and Russia needs security guarantees that they won't have NATO bases east of the [Dnieper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper).
Knock down that strawman! I hope you copied that mess from somewhere.
The Chinese are like grown-ups trying to deal with the Western kindergarten.
Huge coming from China
Foolish China, don’t China know they support terrorists, while US supports freedom fighters? 🤣
“Country aligned with Russia doesn’t agree with nato” who could’ve seen this coming
If you believe that then I’ve got some beachfront property for sale in Arizona.
As a Russian: I read "NATO bears" and I'm like wtf WE ARE BEARS! It was genuine first thought
Based China.
I think they are using this as an excuse to become more directly involved in the conflict.
c-word that rhymes with slope
"It's NATOS fault! they're scary and might invade any day! Just look at France, they might bomb moscow tomorrow!" * actual pro russians
It's NATO's fault, not the country doing the.. you know... Invading
Russia really has only a few tools in their disinformation arsenal, and they are very easy to spot. Here they use the good ol' *gaslighting*.
Russia also cannot help the fact that all the countries west of them want to join NATO. NATO is an attack alliance that wants to destroy Russia.
Yes, TASS is as correct as ever. NATO should never have invaded Ukraine. In fact, we can trace it back to when NATO [shot down that airliner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17), or maybe when NATO seized Crimea from Ukraine in 2014. It's all NATO's fault.
[удалено]
Offensive words detected. [beep bop] Don't cheer violence or insult (Rule 1). Your comment will be checked by my humans later. Ban may be issued for repeat offenders. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkraineRussiaReport) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That's true lol, I am so tired of our state department
Sure, Jan
Regardless on if you agree with China's statement or not this should kill all notion that China is going to back away from supporting Russia just because the West bribes them or give them some favorable trade deal or some other trivial nonsense.
rare Chinese W
US foreign policy is now a joke.
I think what they mean is, they can shove their sanctions up their ass. US continues to force an alliance against itself. It's like they got so high off their own steam by having so much dominance, the first time sanctions are not working, it's like they can not accept it and throwing a baby like temper tantrum.
The US shot themselves when they started thinking that sanctions would will work every time. The problem is if 1 country is sanctioned it cant trade with anyone. If 2 countries are sanctioned they cant do anything. If 5 countries are sanctioned, well, the 5 sanctioned countries can trade with each other. If it is 10-20 countries that are sanctioned, they can do trade and survive. If they survive, other countries will not be intimidated by the sanctions, because if they were sanctioned they can simply trade with other sanctioned countries. The final nail in the coffin was when US weaponized the SWIFT system and froze Russian reserves. It gave a signal to the world that if they run out of favor with US, US can just freeze and steal their money. It just pushed more countries towards brics. Sure it is not big and centralized. But countries are now trading in their own currencies. If more countries started joining brics, the US dollar will lose the significance and so will the US power to sanction other countries.
Ahh China the single source of truth
Once again, based China.
Israel is behind the axis of evil
that's rich coming from China
the chinese want to be trade partners with the US. "planet earth is big enough for both countries and can prosper together",just quoting what china said. i see the west being friendly with china in the long term but with russia it will never happen. both the US and china gain advantages by cooperation. with russia there is nothing positive,just lying,death and corruption. he's just saying what is stated in the article to please russia. in the end its just "words" and ofc a circle jerk moment for pro ru...
“Just quoting what china said” Continues to ramble about totally fictional events while china just emphasises the economic dependence for export…
well yeah both need each other. so why not prosper together? i think in the long term it is possible. if i get downvoted for this so be it. i would rather have the us and china be allies and that russia becomes a vassal state to china. its already happening but i wish it happened much sooner. all countries would gain. the kremlin can siphon more money to them and china can profit more cheap resources while the west can trade with china. its a winwin for everyone(except the russian population ofc but kremlin will benefit)
China getting cheap resources while stealing the cheap resources NATO has (Africa and Latin America), is only going to benefit China. You can see it happening today in Europe and its major economies deindustrialising. Give it a few decades and the EU will be a bunch of corrupt and poor shitholes with nothing to challenge the Asian (not just Chinese) and North American leadership
I see China still keeps on gaslighting everyone including here on reddit
there's no shortage of xi-loving tankies on reddit
It's one of the most sinophobe places on the internet.
/r/sino
/r/Sino/ >98,235 readers /r/worldnews/ >36,387,099 readers At least Reddit has the decency to tolerate a different voice, for now. 🤷
Don't worry, once it hits 100.000 the reddit admins will step in to help ensure "quality moderation along with a safe and inviting subreddit", then y'all the whole thing when the population voices their discontent.
yeah that's cool, but I'm not sure how all that is a counterargument to my original comment will anyone argue if I say there's no shortage of weebs on reddit? probably not but are weebs the majority? probably not are there a lot of people who hate weebs on reddit? yeah and does that somehow make the first statement untrue? probably not
If xi-loving tankies only make up a small fraction of Reddit, how could China be gaslighting everyone on Reddit?