War with Russia

[AndyRM]

Here:
https://polishnews.co.uk/sergey-lav...d-over-novosibirsk-reports-of-the-daily-bild/
and(same story reported in many other news outlets)

As @Rusty Nails said, it doesn't say anything like you think it does.

Even on the niche politics section of a cycling website, misinformation is a dangerous thing.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

As @Rusty Nails said, it doesn't say anything like you think it does.

Even on the niche politics section of a cycling website, misinformation is a dangerous thing.

I was a bit time limited, but it wasn't my only source, it suported my claim that lavrov's plane alledly turned away. However on this link https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...0832c62addfb5c#block-6232a60c8f0832c62addfb5c

It says

China 'will never attack Ukraine', praises Ukrainian unity and resistance
China’s ambassador to Ukraine has praised Ukraine’s unity and resistance in remarks which appear to contradict the country’s earlier stance.

Fan Xianrong said China “will never attack Ukraine” but will support it economically and politically during a meeting with Lviv’s regional military administration, Ukrainian media outlet Ukrinform reported, citing the administration’s press service.

China will never attack Ukraine, we will help, in particular in the economic direction.

In this situation, which you have now, we will act responsibly. We have seen how great the unity of the Ukrainian people is, and that means its strength.

Lviv’s governor of the regional military administration, Maksym Kozytskiy, also confirmed the meeting in a statement earlier this week, noting that China sent two batches of humanitarian aid to the Ukrainian people, with a third expected this week. He said:

China and Ukraine are strategic partners, this year marks the 30th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries.”

Xianrong added:

China is a friendly country for the Ukrainian people. As an ambassador, I can responsibly say that China will forever be a good force for Ukraine, both economically and politically. We will always respect your state, we will develop relations on the basis of equality and mutual benefit. We will respect the path chosen by Ukrainians because this is the sovereign right of every nation.”

Think that about equals ''done with Russia'' now we can disagree about whether that term is appropriate but it certainly isn't ''misinformation''

 

[Rusty Nails]

I was a bit time limited, but it wasn't my only source, it suported my claim that lavrov's plane alledly turned away. However on this link https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...0832c62addfb5c#block-6232a60c8f0832c62addfb5c

It says


Think that about equals ''done with Russia'' now we can disagree about whether that term is appropriate but it certainly isn't ''misinformation''

It either gets a teeny bit closer to "done with Russia" or "running with the hare and the hounds until it sees which way things are likely to go".

At least it is not negative.

 

[AndyRM]

I was a bit time limited, but it wasn't my only source, it suported my claim that lavrov's plane alledly turned away. However on this link https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...0832c62addfb5c#block-6232a60c8f0832c62addfb5c

It says


Think that about equals ''done with Russia'' now we can disagree about whether that term is appropriate but it certainly isn't ''misinformation''

On the same news feed it also says:

"The Guardian’s correspondent in Taipei, Helen Davidson, has provided a helpful explainer addressing the question: How close are China and Russia? It’s a question that has come under increased scrutiny in light of recent claims that Beijing knew of Russia’s plans to invade Ukraine.

Under the rule of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin China and Russia have become increasingly isolated from the west – and closer to each other.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine came just days after Xi and Putin cemented a significant partnership on the sidelines of the Beijing Winter Olympics – the first in-person, bilateral meeting Xi had attended since the pandemic began.

A joint statement from the two leaders said the bonds between the two countries had “no limits” and there were “no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation”. It called on the west to “abandon the ideologised approaches of the cold war”, and expressed support for each other’s stance on Ukraine and Taiwan."

So, no, China very much isn't "done with Russia".

Perhaps misinformation is too strong a word, how about "inaccurate"?

To be honest, the whole thing is an absolute cluster*ck and it's difficult to pin down what's really going on.

 

[matticus]

You have to remember: the Chinese are inscrutable. Well known for it.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

On the same news feed it also says:

"The Guardian’s correspondent in Taipei, Helen Davidson, has provided a helpful explainer addressing the question: How close are China and Russia? It’s a question that has come under increased scrutiny in light of recent claims that Beijing knew of Russia’s plans to invade Ukraine.

Under the rule of Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin China and Russia have become increasingly isolated from the west – and closer to each other.

It's still an ''claim'' that China knew, the US en Eu knew too the newsarticles where saying it in increasingly worrying tone right before the actual invasion.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine came just days after Xi and Putin cemented a significant partnership on the sidelines of the Beijing Winter Olympics – the first in-person, bilateral meeting Xi had attended since the pandemic began.

A joint statement from the two leaders said the bonds between the two countries had “no limits” and there were “no ‘forbidden’ areas of cooperation”. It called on the west to “abandon the ideologised approaches of the cold war”, and expressed support for each other’s stance on Ukraine and Taiwan."

the heading above that article warns ''this article is more than a month old'' Considering how China voted ''Neutral'' in the United nations a few weeks ago in an motion to condem Russia, could it, might be. possibly be that China is slowly changing it's view?

So, no, China very much isn't "done with Russia".

Perhaps misinformation is too strong a word, how about "inaccurate"?

To be honest, the whole thing is an absolute cluster*ck and it's difficult to pin down what's really going on.

Ok we can't be sure if there done with Russia but there not photo-opportunity happy to help like Assad for example.
I agree that's an absolute clusterfark, Putin gabled on overhtrowing the Ukranian goverment quickly, but fell flat on his face.

 

[AndyRM]

It's still an ''claim'' that China knew, the US en Eu knew too the newsarticles where saying it in increasingly worrying tone right before the actual invasion.


the heading above that article warns ''this article is more than a month old'' Considering how China voted ''Neutral'' in the United nations a few weeks ago in an motion to condem Russia, could it, might be. possibly be that China is slowly changing it's view?



Ok we can't be sure if there done with Russia but there not photo-opportunity happy to help like Assad for example.
I agree that's an absolute clusterfark, Putin gabled on overhtrowing the Ukranian goverment quickly, but fell flat on his face.

China meeting with Russia like that was a big deal, regardless of when it happened.

I'm with @Rusty Nails on this - China are playing their cards close to their chest here.

 

[qigong chimp]

I'm with @Rusty Nails on this - China are playing their cards close to their chest here.

Inscrutable.

 

[newfhouse]

Inscrutable.

Known for it.

 

[Ian H]

The Russian system enables and empowers Putin and seemingly hands over all responsibility for its actions to him.

The amorphous US or the West is criticised for provoking this invasion yet the criticism of the violence centres on Putin as if the nation’s political system has nothing to do with it

Is he dangerous or is Russia dangerous? Chicken or egg?

Currently Putin is dangerous because his personal standing is at stake. Part of his reason for invading was to bolster his waning popularity. That gambit is in danger of failing. I don't know how secure his position is, but possibly, just perhaps, those behind him who are being financially hurt are starting to complain. The difficulty, if Putin remains in power, is how he can step back without losing face. If he went, Russia could withdraw, but I doubt there would be any improvement in its governance.

 

[qigong chimp]

Students of Rebecca West's 'Black Lamb and Grey Falcon' will be familiar with the martyrish streak in the Slavic psyche.
Perhaps like Tzar Lazar before him, Putin might be persuaded towards a heavenly kingdom?

 

[qigong chimp]

"...only part of us is sane: only part of us loves pleasure and the longer day of happiness, wants to live to our nineties and die in peace, in a house that we built, that shall shelter those who come after us. The other half of us is nearly mad. It prefers the disagreeable to the agreeable, loves pain and its darker night despair, and wants to die in a catastrophe that will set back life to its beginnings and leave nothing of our house save its blackened foundations."

My word!

 

[Ian H]

"...only part of us is sane: only part of us loves pleasure and the longer day of happiness, wants to live to our nineties and die in peace, in a house that we built, that shall shelter those who come after us. The other half of us is nearly mad. It prefers the disagreeable to the agreeable, loves pain and its darker night despair, and wants to die in a catastrophe that will set back life to its beginnings and leave nothing of our house save its blackened foundations."

My word!

So long-distance cyclists and autocratic presidents are much the same kind of creature.

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

Are all subject experts of the same opinion? I am not convinced a Twitter thread with selected quotes from former politicians is conclusive proof e.g. to take just one "CIA director Bill Burns in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests"". That was 14 years ago and Ukraine was no closer to NATO membership in 2022.

I must admit to not really remembering many of your previous posts other than that they seemed to be of "the West wrong, China/Russia good" variety, or perhaps I am doing you a disservice. Fair enough, if you prefer their undemocratic, totalitarian approach that doesn't respect, trust or inform their subjects over the admittedly less than perfect, broadly democratic West, that has also been involved in its own unnecessary wars, but please don't insult everyone else's intelligence by claiming the experts you agree with are right and the others are wrong.

I believe your views are ideologically rather than factually based.

Even those who like to blame NATO for this war, but realise they cannot be seen to be condoning the killing, refer to the war as if it is just due to a "maverick" Putin, ignoring the violent history of Russia and the facts that it is the Russian system that has enabled and empowered Putin and some (but not all) leaders to carry out these vile actions.

I can fully understand Russia's concerns about having another major power on their border but I think that was a pretext rather than a justifiable reason for the invasion as it was clear that Ukraine was not going to join NATO, but that was not good enough for Putin and, forgive me if I am wrong, but I am unaware of any neighbour, in or out of NATO threatening Russia's borders. In addition to this Putin does not even want Ukraine joining the EU, although this cannot be a threat to Russia but he is ideologically tied to the idea that Ukraine should still be a part of Russia.
I am not saying that the West is blameless in all this, but that is not the fault of Ukraine and in no way justifies the atrocities and war crimes that have been unleashed in their country.

Thankyou for responding in a civilised manner, unlike some.

Since when is winning an argument requiring ALL experts to concur, if you have an equally strong list of experts with their cogent counter arguments why don’t you produce it? The current director of CIA’s warning is in fact more potent that it happened in 2008 because US/NATO could hardly claim they had no opportunity since to avoid what came to pass.

Amongst many other actions that Russia found objectionable, in 2019, Ukraine decided to enshrine joining NATO in their constitution, followed last year by NATO reiterating the 2008 decision that Ukraine would become a member of the alliance, with Stoltenberg provocatively declaring that “Russia will not be able to veto Ukraine's accession to NATO”.

Consequently, Russia had only one decision to make – for which there is another recent expert assessment:

“The choice that we faced in Ukraine — and I'm using the past tense there intentionally — was whether Russia exercised a veto over NATO involvement in Ukraine on the negotiating table or on the battlefield,” said George Beebe, a former director of Russia analysis at the CIA and special adviser on Russia to former Vice President Dick Cheney. “And we elected to make sure that the veto was exercised on the battlefield, hoping that either Putin would stay his hand or that the military operation would fail.”

Yet, all the armchair experts here have decided that they are more expert than the real experts, like you by pointing to shallow counter arguments like Russian land isn’t threatened, as if the experts wouldn’t have thought of that in producing their conclusion.

For Russia, the reality is damned if they did, and damned if they didn’t – it is clear US/NATO were never going to stop poking. While it would have been best for Ukraine to remain neutral and to implement Minsk II, they fueled the flame instead. Was Russia supposed to wait, until US woke up one morning regretting their crusade for liberal democracy by regime changes around the world?

I notice you say my arguments are based on “ideology rather than facts”, while you painted Russia and China with the same brush, although they are vastly different animals except in hubristic Anglophone liberalism that puts them in the same sinking boat, which remarkably also says without any irony the sinking boat is a threat that justifies constant poking by megaphone diplomacy, encirclement and armed close-passes etc.! You also suggest the Chinese are generally less “respected” by their government – when the opposite is the case if you see through the demonisation and have bothered to understand the nuances and facts (Edelman, Harvard). Who is actually “insulting everyone else's intelligence” here?

FWIW, I have huge sympathy for the Ukrainian civilians caught up in this disaster. But for our children’s sake, important questions for consideration are what should/could have been done to avoid this mess, and now we are in this mess what are the major implications going forward, and further what are the lessons learnt to avoid the same happening elsewhere in the future? Agreed?

 

[RecordAceFromNew]

I was a bit time limited, but it wasn't my only source, it suported my claim that lavrov's plane alledly turned away. However on this link https://www.theguardian.com/world/l...0832c62addfb5c#block-6232a60c8f0832c62addfb5c

It says


Think that about equals ''done with Russia'' now we can disagree about whether that term is appropriate but it certainly isn't ''misinformation''

You will find these actions/messages, like theirs associated with Russia, are consistent with China being the only major power adhering mostly to the Westphalian principle in its foreign policies, a principle that arose from the Thirty Years’ War and enshrined in the UN charter, and a principle that has been trashed and burnt by the West over the past couple hundreds of years, most egregiously by the US of A during recent decades and most recently by Russia – all confirming what we can learn from history, is that nothing is learnt from history.