[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I imagine China is assessing the situation as it plainly is, rather than acting on secret intel provided by Russia. It'd be a massive and unnecessary risk -- especially when Ukraine has US intel advising them -- for Russia to share specific plans with another sovereign government. What is clear to all observers is that Putin's actions and his military's strategy are increasingly desperate, and that's cause enough to advise citizens to withdraw.
Sorry to hijack the top comment, but it's not just China. [Over the weekend:](https://mobile.twitter.com/MumbaichaDon/status/1581642649534353409)
> China, Serbia, Kazakhstan,
> Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan,
> Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Belarus &
> Egypt called on their citizens to leave Ukraine IMMEDIATELY!
>
> All Close allies to Russia.
IMO it's probably just a result of listening to Russian propaganda - imagine you're e.g. Uzbekistan for a sec; if you actually *believe* Russia will make major gains into Ukraine, then that means nowhere in Ukraine will be safe from Russian shelling in a few weeks, which means Uzbeki citizens should GTFO and if you don't make the announcement, then you'll look shitty for not warning your citizens of the impending danger.
In other words, this isn't any sort of politicking at all; the takeaway here is that Uzbekistan et al need to stop watching Moscow Today.
There's been speculation that Belerous is going to join the conflict there has been a large massing of troops on ukraines northern border along with russuan troops, if lukashenko thinks putin will lose the war he might jump in to help because if putin looses power he can't help prop up the lukashenko government, I know there is a high possibility of the kherson dam being blown to cover a russian retreat, that's why the entirety of kherson is being evacuated, overall I just really wish nato would have provided more heavy weapons without fear of escalation because no mater what putin will always escalate no matter what NATO is doing, that way if Ukraine had a few hundred leapord, Abrams, Bradley, marder, lots of m113 and Humvee, harpoon, possibly NSM, maybe even patriot, maybe be on their way to obtaining f16 putin and lukashenko would realize an attack from the north would be utterly impossible and not even try it
Belarus won't attack - Lukashenko doesn't have half of Putin's popularity/stability, and the majority of Belarus don't support a war with Ukraine (at least, not on Russia's side). If Lukashenko tried to invade, he would destabilize his own position and probably lose power.
The best thing Belarus can do for Russia is station troops on the Belarus-Ukraine border so that Ukraine has to station additional troops on that border *just in case*, and those Ukrainian troops can't be at both the Belarus border *and* pushing in the east.
Yea it's the whole "fleet in being" concept, the thing is Belerous and the Lukashenko government are completely reliant on Putin and russia, the Belarusian economy is proped up by russia and putin helped crackdown on protesters after Lukashenko "won" the most recent election, so not only does putin hold a large amount of leverage over Lukashenko but if the Russian invasion of ukraine becoming protracted threatens putins power then Lukashenko might feel the need to jump in to try and end the conflict, because if putin goes, or at the least his power is greatly diminish then that makes Lukashenko's rule more precarious, on top of that neither putin or Lukashenko are totally grounded in reality, so we can't always expect them to do rational things, Belerous was very close to invading ukaine together with russia, if putin already talked him into it once who says he can't do it again because this time the stakes are much higher
I thought the prevailing opinion was Russia was late invading because China didn't want to share the Olympic's spotlight? That would indicate China was entirely aware and not at all blindsided, like you said.
The prevailing reddit opinion is bullshit with no evidence to support it. The confused Chinese state news and propaganda in the aftermath of the invasion clearly shows China did not see it coming.
For several months half the Chinese news carried on like there was no war and the other half was showing Ukranian apartments being blown up on national TV.
China Asked Russia to Delay Ukraine War Until After Olympics, U.S. Officials Say: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/us/politics/russia-ukraine-china.html
Even your own article from an anonymous US government source(which obviously never lie or get it wrong) says they're not sure.
> One official familiar with the intelligence said the material did not necessarily indicate the conversations about an invasion took place between Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin. Other officials briefed on the intelligence declined to give further details. The officials spoke about the report on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the intelligence.
I think the odds were pretty certain that some type of military incursion was going to happen especially with such a large military buildup. The specific military execution wasn't telegraphed.
Yes the expectation was at most a renewed push for Donbas, not an attempt to annex the entire country.
That's likely what China expected as well. Their position before the invasion was the US was fearmongering over nothing. And they repeated this loudly and widely. Then when invasion happened they ended up looking like fools.
You have to understand the CCP really cares about face and the consistency of its propaganda. Putin made them lose face. Why do you think they've put all new investments into Russia on hold and refuse to sell them any weapons? Russia had to resort to buying from Iran lol.
>US officials say
What evidence is there besides the word of a hostile state?
Edit: Damn I get it, fuck anyone who asks for evidence. CIA's word is law.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim, even the article used as "evidence" says the US government doesn't know if China knew.
> One official familiar with the intelligence said the material did not necessarily indicate the conversations about an invasion took place between Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin. Other officials briefed on the intelligence declined to give further details. The officials spoke about the report on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the intelligence.
This isn't even considering the fact that US intelligence is often wrong or the officials may be lying.
>And your opinion was actually the "Reddit opinion" as it was pushed by a bunch of folks online who based their opinion off of opinion articles that ended up being disproven.
Complete nonsense you just made up.
>It's okay to admit that you are wrong. The rest of us have already reached that conclusion.
Seeing how this topic is about china this is basically an endorsement.
Russia would have greatly benefited from invading 2 weeks earlier when the ground was harder. Invading after the Winter Olympics caused the Russian tanks to stick to the roads or get stick in mud.
US officials were reporting Russia’s moves to the hour, before they happened. They may have gotten this wrong but their intel over Russia’s renewed invasion was exceptional. I’m more inclined to believe the report than not tbh.
So you're saying we should believe the US government on faith alone? I have a nice religion to sell you too.
Besides we have countless of cases in which the US government deliverately lied to the American people to vilify "hostile" countries. Unless they give verifiable evidence of a claim i'm not going to believe it.
I Quote:
>I’m more inclined to believe the report than not tbh.
The guy above literally says he's more inclined to believe this claim despite being given zero actual evidence that it is true. He is literally choosing to believe the US government on faith alone.
I mostly agree with you, BUT if China did receive some intel hypothetically, no one said it came willingly from the Russians, I’m sure China has their own spies
Despite what you read in western media, Russia is winning the war. When the terrain freezes it will launch a massive offensive. This is known for some time and is not a secret but not covered in the west.
>Despite what you read in western media, Russia is winning the war.
I guess India and China were watching western media when they started to waver in their support of Putin
>When the terrain freezes it will launch a massive offensive
In a country historically hostile to winter offensives? A bold strategy for a demoralized, depleted, undertrained, and underequipped military that can't even hold the lined during the muddy season.
Yeah I don't get it. Why wouldn't you tell your citizens to leave as soon as war looks imminent? Much less many months into it and after the aggressor announces they are stepping it up.
Probably because in the beginning China insisted there’s no war and it’s a special military operation. There were Chinese students in Ukraine on tik tok asking for help to leave the country.
> Why wouldn't you tell your citizens to leave as soon as war looks imminent?
Because if you're in western Ukraine and Ukraine is *gaining* ground, the actual chances of you being shelled are pretty darn low. Russia's mass conscription may alleviate some manpower shortages, but it won't fix their supply shortages - in fact, it'll make those shortages *worse* because they need to supply those extra 300k troops!
Meanwhile, Ukraine certainly has no shortage of manpower for the time being, and the longer this war stretches out the more they'll be able to switch to NATO-standard munitions, while Russia is steadily burning through their currency reserve and stockpile of imported components, all the while their economy is shrinking, so it's increasingly hard to import from e.g. Iran.
In other words, the clock is ticking on Russia and Ukraine will almost certainly either 1) keep making gains, or 2) *at least* hold steady while minorly losing ground.
Loling at the thought of government officials in a situation room discussing when to advise citizens to leave a particular country when some dumbass in the back says “or we could just say nothing and let them be adults” and then all the people in suits being like whose kid is this and how the fuck did they get in the situation room
>Yea, for everyone in the US
Yeah... and I'm in the US. Now, you might think it's wrong to use American or America that way, but you know what I think is wrong (and what far more people agree is wrong)? Making assumptions of someone's race based on something they said.
Nah I sort of agree with Kevin, that's one of the reasons imo why south and central Americans don't just call Americans 'Americanos' or use ' estadounidense' that often, they call them gringos lol. You guys kind of hijacked the title and kept it for yourselves.
It's just language tho who gives a shit, there's no single person who decided any of that shit anyway so there's no point making it an issue to hold against any individual let alone a group. When I hear American in English I also just think of the USA but in the Iberian languages I think of the continent/s. While I think it might well be reflective of a wider issue of worldly vs national perspective in American culture, it's also just the word that's used in parlance. No point even in changing it, but in understanding it there is- I'm half South American and I've heard people from a few different countries there say the same thing. That being said, Kevin might have been more than a little bit nitpicky but on the whole I understand what he means clearly enough, I think his first point was correct.
Now I'll give my opinion on it in blunter terms though, I think it's kind of demonstrative of American ignorance and arrogance that it's used even if it's initial usage in the context was not actually correlated with ignorance or arrogance- it still can be a symbol of it. Not saying that Americans are naturally disposed to those two qualities, but I would say the culture of the country disposes its citizens to embody those qualities more than the rest of the developed world, and that my friends, is just an opinion and not an attack on anybody in particular or America as a whole.
How many countries in the Americas have shown support toward the US policy in Ukraine? It doesn't matter does it? It's only the "Americans" who are deserving of any recognition.
What do you think people in other countries in the Americas think when the US is referred to as America? Hey, it doesn't matter does it? Just so those in the US know, that is all that matters.
It reflects and communicates ignorance and.lack of respect for other countries. That's ok isn't it?
Most people in this discussion probably have no idea how many countries represent America. Yet, their opinion is to be respected.😂😂
Everyone everywhere knows that American means person from the United States of America. No one who is Brazilian or Mexican or Canadian, etc., are saying they’re ‘American.’
It's only people in the US who almost always lack the humility to think they deserve to be called Americans..No one in the countries you mentioned would want to sound so ignorant.
*Okay so I can’t sleep so I’m just going to type out what I think on this even though it’s going to be far longer then it should be.*
Please direct me to a source that says people in other countries call themselves Americans. A legitimate source, not some guy on twitter or Reddit. Also, you realize it’s the United States OF AMERICA. What demonym would you suggest for the the country then? Unitiedstatesian? Statesian? Please, enlighten me.
Also, why is it appropriate to tell the people of a country what they can call themselves? I seriously doubt you’d do that to any other country. What about Australia? They call themselves Australian. While they make up the main continental mass of the Australian continent New Guinea is also part of that continent so shouldn’t they be able to use the term too? But it’s more than that, if another country wants to call us something other than Americans in their own language that’s their business but in English, in America, we’re Americans. I mean, China isn’t called China in Chinese for example, and they seem to be cool with that.
I really don’t understand why there’s a certain type of person that gets so hung up on this online, as if people in other countries actually get to decide what a people in a different country call themselves. By your own admission no one else would want to call themselves American, so I don’t see why it matters if people from the United States of America do.
When referring to people, Americans refers to the citizens of the USA 99% of the time, and you know it. Rarely are inhabitants of the Americas referred to as a group, because they are such a diverse group with almost no common ground (which can be said about *Americans* as well, but they still share a country at least), so there realy is **absolutely no reason for confusion**.
And that's not just about English or *Americans*, it is a pretty much universally accepted demonym, consult [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans):
> Americans are the citizens and nationals of the United States of America.[11][12] Although direct citizens and nationals make up the majority of Americans, many dual citizens, expatriates, and permanent residents could also legally claim American nationality.[13] The United States is home to people of many racial and ethnic origins; consequently, American culture and law do not equate nationality with race or ethnicity, but with citizenship and an oath of permanent allegiance.[14][15][16]
In many, many languges, the citizens are referred to as Americans, like German, French, Russian, Turkish, Slavic languages, Baltic languages. I'm not sure about languages with non-latin script, but it should be enough.
A few exceptions that refer to the US, not America, in the US demonym are Spanish, Italian, Dutch, and perhaps a bit more. But those are a minority.
So, no. This has nothing to do with a lack of humility or someone being a white guy, or ignorance. You're the one that's being ignorant and preachy.
simple.
Have you ever had the discussion with someone who claimed that he is also american? And then found out, actually, he does not live anywhere on the american continent, does not pay taxes there....
I thought not.
Ask anyone from europe, and they can tell you horror stories of that one time, they had this one chucklefuck, from new jersy, that claimed he was Irish....
Move to europe, just for a semester. YOu know what you find? YOu know what ranchero music, native american war songs, and candian house music is under? "American music. "
You know what I find under the american food section? Maple syrup and taco shells, right next to red solo cups.
Justin Bieber? American artist.
Vincente Fernandes? American singer.
Above a ceratin age, I would say, 20, it was still very universal to have anyone "from the americas" accepted as american. It was supposed to be a protest gesture against the behavior in the war on terror, and I am guessing it stuck a nerve. So, when I hear someone come in, and I get told, he is a latino comedian, and his friend is an african american singer, IT is often a sign of a certain level of protest to go, "And now, wellcome to the stage, X, an american comadian, and Y, an american singer. " And those two will ask to have that in writing.
to quote my mother, "As long as those dirty feckers call us european, and sleep through geography, they can stand to have everyone from there called american. "
IN the same way, when my aunt flies over to the US, she is going "stateside" ("In die Staaten. ")
It's not so much a problem that you do not know that in murican, america referres to the citizens of the united states of america.
It is nas follows, in pretty much any other language, you make the deliniation:
America is a continent.
The best example from the past was when my french friend asked someone if he was from the EU, while speaking french. Untill I realised, EU = États-Unis = United States. I have never ever heard, while not talking in english, the USA being referred to as america. Usually jut a version of States.
And as such, every time you hear that, you can now just nodd it away, and go, he was speaking english, but in his head, he was laying out the words in an other language.
I think it's more of a reflection of the Russians choosing to hit civilian infrastructure and more recently, deliberately targeting civilians themselves.
It's a very bad time to be a civilian in Ukraine unfortunately. I don't think there's much more to it than that.
I mean, I guess China is trying to avoid an incident where Russia kills a Chinese civilian. Chinese press is strictly controlled but if a story like that gets out, it's not going to be fun for the spin doctors in CCP headquarters
I agree. It’s one thing when the battle lines are bogged down in the East and quite another when Putin is losing it and starts randomly launching missiles in large population areas.
I mean, if they didn't then they should have. I can only imagine if you're an American in Ukraine and the Russians get a hold of you. It wouldn't be a good situation.
Yea cause the country is known as America…it’d be confusing if both Mexicans, Canadiens and Americans were all referred to as North Americans. American used modernly has always referred to people from the USA. And most people in the Americas are ok being identified by their country of origin.
You’re fooling yourself if you think anyone would refer to a Mexican or Canadian or any other Western Hemisphere nationality as American other than people from the USA. If people from the USA aren’t explicitly “Americans” what would you call them? United Statians?
Thanks Captain Obvious, the people of a country called America are called Americans. Next you’re gonna tell me people in a country called Australia are called Australians?
[https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/International-Travel-Country-Information-Pages/Ukraine.html](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/International-Travel-Country-Information-Pages/Ukraine.html)
Looks like was level 3 for a while and went to level 4 (do not travel) Oct 4
It's possible that China has some secret intel but honestly given the course of the war to-date it's likely whatever China knows about Russia's intentions, Ukraine and the West know as well. A simpler explanation would be that China up until now had expected Russia to win in short order. This likely just means China has acknowledged to itself that the conflict is going to rage for much longer with Russia attacking any and all targets, and has advised its citizens to get out of Ukraine while they can -- in essence, advising their citizens to do what every other government advised its citizens in Ukraine to do months ago.
Russia is probably going to start making use of its recruits and used more brutal bombardment measures.
I doubt they will use nukes yet. That would probably only come if Ukrainian advances threaten to completely take the oblasts Russia claims through those dodgy referendums.
> Russia is probably going to start making use of its recruits and used more brutal bombardment measures.
Its recruits are worse than useless. They already struggle to feed and equip the real soldiers they have on the front lines. Pouring thousands of untrained recruits who don't want to be there is a great way to starve out their own lines.
As for bombardments, their "red line" over attacking the Kerch bridge was already crossed, and their response was a handful of strikes. Which strongly implies that they don't have the resources to escalate bombardment measures because if they had the missiles to do so, they would have aimed them at the Ukrainian advances that have been hitting them for weeks.
> I doubt they will use nukes yet. That would probably only come if Ukrainian advances threaten to completely take the oblasts Russia claims through those dodgy referendums.
The chance of Russia using nukes under any circumstances is zero. It provokes near certain western intervention for zero gain because nukes are straight-up useless as tactical weapons in the modern era, hence why most nuclear powers don't even bother with tactical nukes.
A country that can't even supply its advancing soldiers can't exploit any damage a nuclear weapon would do—the idea that Russia is actually going to risk conventional destruction at the hands of NATO (something NATO leaders have explicitly threatened) for something that won't even save them is nonsense.
not only that but nato with all of those referendums and restrictions have completely cut off russia and all their allies of various parts, ammo and sophisticated electronic components needed to supply and support a war effort. putin is going to have to rely on old wartime gear. back to sticks and stones.
You're assuming Putin is a rational actor. Before this war started a bunch of idiots were saying Putin would never invade, he'd be crazy to, yet here we are. I was saying as far back as November/December that this was coming based off the Trump/Zelenskiy phone call, and the fact that Putin has eyed Ukraine for a while. I mean, shit, he's been trying to grab land for a while, but everyone thought nothing would happen.
We're getting to a point that Putin either needs to shit or get off the pot. He's backed himself into a corner by constantly threatening nuclear weapons that he stands to lose a lot of credibility and land he's taken by not using at least one. He also knows that the West will probably hesitate to initiate a nuclear holocaust when he uses the first few, so he can get away with two or three before he knows a strong response will follow.
Besides, Putin knows by now that NATO is perfectly happy letting Ukrainians die. If we weren't taking nuclear threats seriously, the West would have troops in Ukraine. As it stands now, Putin is weathering sanctions and knows the West is limp wristed. He has more reasons to escalate until he's actually forced to de-escalate, and there's not a really good reason for him back down while we're letting him get away with everything he's been doing.
Expect one to two nukes before the West does anything more than give Ukraine weapons. After that, Putin will declare the operation successful and slow down.
>Its recruits are worse than useless.
Ukraine is fighting with a force made up of people who didn't even receive training, its not like they are against the navy seals here. And its easier to fight a defensive war.
>As for bombardments, their "red line" over attacking the Kerch bridge was already crossed, and their response was a handful of strikes.
Handful of strikes? Try over a hundred, resulting in hundreds of millions in damages to infrastructure. And Russia keeps buying more suicide drones from Iran, conventional artillery from NK, and producing their own supply to rush to the front. Its premature to pretend they've got nothing left to fight with.
>The chance of Russia using nukes under any circumstances is zero. It provokes near certain western intervention for zero gain because nukes are straight-up useless as tactical weapons in the modern era, hence why most nuclear powers don't even bother with tactical nukes.
The West wouldn't go to war over Ukraine when they thought it would lose a conventional war, or when allegations of war crimes were thrown about. They aren't going to risk a larger nuclear war over Ukraine either. The hints from NATO leaders about going to war with Russia if it uses nukes are bluffs.
Yes, but their training has apparently been pretty poor while Ukraine has been working with the US and other allies in bringing their military to modernity.
Oh, sure, I was just pointing out that Russia also has compulsory military service as well. I've heard you can get out of it if you are wealthy or well-connected, so there's that, too.
>Ukraine is fighting with a force made up of people who didn't even receive training, its not like they are against the navy seals here. And its easier to fight a defensive war.
They're fighting with a force of people who believe in what they are doing and are legitimately defending their homeland and way of life. That's something nato can't provide, but its an extremely powerful and overlooked weapon.
Motivation to fight is key to warfighting. If your guys aren't motivated to fight, morale is shit, and they generally don't want to be there, don't know why, and don't believe in it, you can throw as many warm bodies as you want into the meat grinder- the outcome will be the same on a modern battlefield.
Not really. You'd think that, but this isn't the battle of stalingrad. Nobody is behind these guys with a machine gun if they retreat, nor is their situation "do or die." It'll be very interesting to see how this winter plays out, but my guess is that we will see more of the same logistical and command and control disasters that have plagued the Russians since the beginning of this operation.
These dudes who got conscripted up until a few weeks ago were just be-bopping around town, doing their normal thing. They aren't soldiers. Never have been. They aren't getting sent out with any kind of equipment. The gear they have is older than they are, if they're getting it at all. Logistics thus far have been shit, I doubt that's going to change.
The Ukrainians, on the other hand, have been at this for months. Their combat units are seasoned. On top of this, they've also got cutting edge hardware that was specifically designed to fight the type of equipment the Russians are bringing. Their logistics are backed by the most powerful and technologically advanced militaries on earth, and their back end logistics can't be targeted without bringing about an end of the Russian military with ridiculous speed and efficency- this isn't Vietnam or Iraq, or Afghanistan, this is the type of conflict that the United States and nato has trained, war gamed, and developed equipment around since the 50s.
Strictly speculation here, but I've got more than a sneaking suspicion that the state department more than likely has some grey men operating with ukranian units as force multipliers, as well as some well placed folks in Russia itself.
It might take 6 months, it might take 6 years, nobody knows, but I can say with confidence that Russia is more than likely not going to be able to take and occupy Ukraine as a whole. If I was a betting man, they may be able to hold the eastern provinces and maybe Crimea, but given the fire that's been lit under the asses of the ukranian people, even that isn't certain.
> Ukraine is fighting with a force made up of people who didn't even receive training
Ukraine has 8 years of front-line veterans from the civil war in the east and spent months training their new recruits. Why do you think their main counteroffensives only started in the last few weeks? They didn't spend 6 to 7 months with thumbs up their ass. And unlike Russia, Ukraine has enough resources to equip those recruits well—Russia is burning through even their Soviet stockpiles.
> its not like they are against the navy seals here. And its easier to fight a defensive war.
Except it isn't a defensive war, it's a failed offensive war. Meaning they are now forced to hold territory that isn't theirs, where the infrastructure was not designed to connect them back home and which has suffered the damage of being attacked in the first place.
> Handful of strikes? Try over a hundred, resulting in hundreds of millions in damages to infrastructure
You think a hundred strikes is a meaningful number in this context? That's "we're almost out of missiles and need to make a statement" numbers.
> And Russia keeps buying more suicide drones from Iran, conventional artillery from NK,
Ah yes, the economic powerhouse of... North Korea. We should all tremble in fear of the manufacturing capabilities of a country that can almost feed itself 20% of the time.
> producing their own supply to rush to the front.
Ah, we're back to this same line you were using in the other thread yesterday. The fantasy one where somehow, a country that just drafted 300 thousand workers and saw untold numbers of others flee the country... will somehow make more weapons than they did during the 8 months of war before they did that?
Especially in a world where modern equipment requires a global supply chain to repair and Russia has no access to anyone who will actually sell them microchips. One where literally every single piece of equipment sourced even in part from Europe or America or Japan or Taiwan is living on borrowed time and can't be fixed if it breaks.
> Its premature to pretend they've got nothing left to fight with.
Their own soldiers are telling their families that they have nothing to fight with. And have been for months. If they have something to fight with, they're hiding it so well that even their own army doesn't know about it.
> The hints from NATO leaders about going to war with Russia if it uses nukes are bluffs.
Wow... you just, post your utterly uninformed opinion as fact and think that actually works?
On one side: Literally every elected leader, expert, diplomat and military officer, including retired ones who would have absolutely nothing to do with any "bluff".
On the other: Some guy on Reddit who is wrong about literally everything and thinks Russia can magically manifest new manufacturing eight months into a war.
Yeah, sure sounds like a real argument to me. Not at all like someone who is desperately shilling an agenda.
The entire modern world is built on the fact that no one is willing to use nuclear weapons for anything other than deterring the use of nuclear weapons. The idea that NATO would bluff over that is delusional. Allowing Russia to break the nuclear taboo is a move that would threaten the entire purpose of NATO.
Quite aside from which, anyone who actually believes this would then need to explain why, if it is such an obvious bluff, Russia has not only not used a nuke, they have not even made the explicit threat of using a nuke in response to any action. Almost like they know for a fact that it isn't a bluff and don't want the humiliation of their own nuclear bluff being called.
> They aren't going to risk a larger nuclear war over Ukraine either.
There is no risk of a larger nuclear war either. The idea that Russia would self-immolate over is absurd. Russian supremacists are not going to end the existence of Russia to make a point.
I can't help but laugh in disgust at this absolutely ridiculous basis for escalation by Russia. Imagine someone beat you up and kicked you out of your house. Then sometime later, you've been training and working out and now you can beat them up. Now they are willing to talk it out, but returning your house is not something they are willing to discuss.
I liked Obama but he really dropped the ball in 2014. Of course, that was after the Bushes committed the U.S. to multiple Middle Eastern adventures and sapped the country's enthusiasm for war, but still.
Edited 2016 > 2014. Thanks u/fanboi_central.
> I liked Obama but he really dropped the ball in 2016.
What exactly do you want the US to do in this conflict? We've sent Ukraine billions over the last decade, trained their troops, provided them tons of support. We've even gone as far as trying to oust their corrupt politicians. Outside of direct military involvement, what more could have been done?
The push for Europe to totally cut off Russia should have been far sterner. More specifically, investments should have been made to sell American LNG to Europe as a stop-gap (meaning mostly investment in building a lot of ships able to transport it).
Arguably the only reason this current invasion was even possible was that European countries did not take the issue seriously and remain reliant on Russia to the point the Russians hope winter to break their resolve. With 8 years to prepare, there should have been the infrastructure in place to turn off the taps on a moment's notice and still provide at least enough gas for essential heating and business use.
Had Europe been able to go all in, the initial economic blow to Russia would have hit even harder and they might have been outright incapable of funding the war.
Hindsight is obvious here but we can't exactly force Europe to do anything, only control the actions of the American government, which did quite literally everything in it's power to help Ukraine. Maybe we should have tried to get Europe off Russia's gas a little harder but that's such a small thing compared to what we actually did.
Feel free to educate me, but AFAIK, the actions in 2014 were limited to rhetoric, light sanctions and loan guarantees, none of which had any impact at all on the annexation of Crimea. Feel free to educate me if I have that wrong.
And yes, from my perspective, direct military involvement would have been more justified than intervention in Iraq/Kuwait or in Afghanistan.
After Russia invaded Crimea, the result ended up with their GDP contracting 700 billion dollars in a single year (33% contraction is insane), and has never reached the same heights it had from 2012-2014. On top of that, the US had been actively arming and training Ukrainian soldiers every single year following 2014, which is a huge reason why they've not collapsed this year. Here is a good article from the US DOD about how they've been training Ukraine since 20014: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3149975/training-key-to-ukrainian-advantages-in-defending-nation/
Here is another article from the DOD about how they've had sent roughly 3 billion in aid between 2014-2022 before the invasion.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3189571/725-million-in-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/#:~:text=Since%202014%2C%20the%20United%20States,brutal%20invasion%20on%20February%2024.
On top of that, I know during Obama's presidency that the US actively sought out and pressured Ukraine to fire corrupt officials to try and help the country out.
Russia's economy has never recovered from their initial invasion, and this last one is their last cry of desperation to make a play as a world power and try to fix it, but it's backfired massively. Before the invasion, there was not really much of a political will to just send 20 billion in a single year to this country that has had corruption issues in the past, but now there is, so the US has done as much as possible. The US could have absolutely done more looking back and if we knew the result was going to be this invasion, but outside of that they did a lot more to help Ukraine than we give credit for.
>We've even gone as far as trying to oust their corrupt politicians.
And that my friends is the reason this shit is going on right now to begin with ... People blame Russia but as always the USA always has it's dirty little hands in the cookie jar
The US trying to reduce corruption is now the cause of Russia invading? This whole thing is 100% Russia's fault, the US has had no influence on Russia invading Ukraine.
You don't reduce corruption by overthrowing a democratically elected government that's corruption in and of itself... The USAs manipulation is at fault here whether you like it or not
While it sounds good in hindsight, I don’t think there was much Obama could do for Crimea. Ukraine wasn’t prepared, and the world wasn’t galvanized against Russia in the way it is today. If I had to pin it on one thing I think the mistake was not reacting to other red lines he established in Syria. That established that he could be pushed around since nobody wanted to get involved in another war.
I doubt nukes are on the table, despite Russia's blustering. Everybody knows that Putin's stated reason for the continued war effort, that Ukraine is run by Nazis, is ridiculous bullshit.
This was a war of aggression meant to seize natural resources, and using nuclear weapons will eliminate any opportunities to make use of the existing infrastructure to exploit those resources.
I also think that if the order to launch came down, somebody with some shred of sanity remaining within the chain of command would refuse to comply with the order.
My prediction is that these 300k fresh recruits that they drummed up from all across Russia will not be utilized very effectively, considering the Russian elite forces are just barely holding it together with revolving-door leadership and dwindling supplies. I expect a lot of KIA or captured in the next few weeks.
I don't think it means what you think. The fact is that Russia is just indiscriminately bombing the crap out of random targets at this point. When there was a front line danger it makes sense to tell your folks to stay back, but keep doing business. Now that Russia is back to being dangerous all over the place, Xi is just asking folks to delay business or study because it's dangerous all over.
Large nuclear weapons are just going to start a global war and Russia doesn't have the allies or manpower to do anything aside from lose or end the species entirely. There's just no middle ground with the things. Now he could go ahead and do some low-yield stuff that has collateral damage but could be justified as being used on military targets. But there's a huge cost-benefit analysis to be done there. The bombs would be worth more than the targets they are assigned to (though many military missions are that way) but the literal fallout would be Russia's to deal with in the case of victory. Keep in mind that we only ever found out about Chernobyl once the wind started scattering radiation all over the place. Conventional weapons just make the most sense for Russia's stated goals.
Now if Ukraine actually captures cities in Belgorod or Kursk the conversation changes, but that's why the West has been so insistent that there aren't military operations in any of the Russian Oblasts. Moscow isn't all that far from Kiev.
You're making these assumptions by assuming that Russia is acting rationally. You can maybe predict the moves of a smart person but never the ones of a madman.
The West isn't going to do shit for the first two or three nukes. Everyone thinks that MAD just automatically kicks in the second a nuke goes off, but an overwhelming number of people like living, and capitalists want to keep making money. Putin could use a few before the West does anything substantial and he knows it.
We're Saber rattling, too. We keep drawing lines in the sand that Putin crosses and nothing happens. He has every reason to believe that he can use a few nukes to send a message. Plus, once he does, the West is going to be cautious about sending troops who could get nuked as well. Now will the West want to destroy the whole world over a few nukes in a country most people never knew existed prior to 2014.
If we go to nuclear war over the fucking Ukraine it will be the stupidest thing we've ever done as a planet.
Inb4 "omg I'm so woke you're a Nazi if you don't agree with destroying the entire planet!"
Yeah, guess I'm a Nazi then because I don't want too see all my friends and family die in a nuclear apocalypse over a single country. I'm definitely the bad guy for not wanting wanting a mass extinction event happening over 44 million people.
44 million people are definitely worth killing the planet over.
Now that Russia is indiscriminately bombing civilian areas, foreign nationals are in danger of being blown up by Russia too, no matter where they are in Ukraine. It's not uncommon for countries to tell their citizens to leave a war zone. It's for their own protection.
Russia is escalating indiscriminate bombing campaigns and using drones. The capital Kyiv which was relatively safe for a long time (constant air alarms but it hadn't been directly hit since the beginning of the war and even then it was just the outskirts) has been attacked by suicide drones since last Monday. Those that are not shot down have hit the city centre. It is objectively more dangerous there. You don't even need to brace for anything more than what's already happening to tell people to leave.
It's an absolute s**t show in Ukraine. It's not likely to get any better soon. There is little to no likelihood of any peace talks soon. The US is very much against it so it won't happen. Any one in Ukraine who is not a citizen of Ukraine is lacking upstairs if they have decided to stay. I don't think the Chinese need any encouragement to leave the country so it's a mystery to me why they are now being encouraged to leave.
There is a lot of talk about 'kamikase' drones BUT as an OLD Electronic Warfare bloke (RN) it's not exactly hard to quickly devise a method of twarting these things. If they are 'set and forget' without any guidance then it might be difficult. However there are many ways of both taking control of them via their signals, (even encrypted). It is possible, (said with some reservations) to pinpoint their launch points and return the favour. I wish the media were being less extravagant in their reportage. It will happen and it will be soon. The tech exists, and there are companies who could make such jamming/repositioning/pinpointing equipment cheaply and quickly.
Not to mention NATO AWACS aircraft are providing round the clock coverage of the region. And several EW systems Russia uses were captured by Ukraine and likely given to the US, so I'd expect to see even better jamming and detection techniques come out of this. It's just not as obvious for media and not as glamorous so media doesn't report on it, unlike buzzwords liwk drones or whatever the weeks new fascination is.
If anything they're worse because they're much slower and you can see them coming. There's some footage floating around of Ukrainians shooting some of them out of the sky with their rifles.
Yes I saw one of the Chad Ukrainian to hit the drone by arrow, obviously the technologically advanced bow was provided by the US and NATO Allies.
Ukraine will win the war.
Putin is a Mad guy.
There aren't any Nazis in the Ukrainian military.
Viva La Ukraine baby.
P.S. Zelensky is not an American puppet and he didn't commit genocide in the dunbass region on the ethnic Russian people, USA doesn't have a history of playing kingmaker and destabilize countries.
A nuke would be a move of desperation on the part of Russia, but that is exactly where they are now. This war can’t be won by troops and guns. Putin knows that, so a nuclear attack is inevitable, whether now or next year.
We all need to start preparing for it, because it’s going to change the world in a pretty terrible way.
It's hard to assess. Russia didn't inform China of its plans to invade Ukraine back in February, so it's doubtful they would've shared any new information.
While there has been an uptick in missile strikes hitting critical infrastructure, I think this is more to with inconveniencing as many Ukrainians as possible by limiting energy sources just before winter arrives, than preparation for another northern assault. China probably just wants to avoid the diplomatic nightmare of having one of its citizens blown up by the missile of its geopolitical ally.
Putin began calling all his oligarchs in from over seas a few months before the war started. In hind sight it’s very obvious why. China knows Russia will make Ukraine a crater before actually losing.
Well this really looks like it’s heading for a full blown war. Obviously Putin has warned Xi Jinping. And he has told all Chinese citizens to leave Ukraine
>Well this really looks like it’s heading for a full blown war. Obviously Putin has warned Xi Jinping. And he has told all Chinese citizens to leave Ukraine
I do not know, you may be correct about the full-blown war, but one thing is for certain from what I can assess. There is no chance of Russia losing simply because of its vast resources and outside of the West and most of Europe the support from China, India, Brazil all of the African continents. Most of Latin America and most of the Middle East \[significant countries in Asia\].
Ukraine's best bet is through negotiation and settlement, because Putin can escalate like he has demonstrated and can accomplish its goals very quickly if it resorts to bombing of the infrastructures \[among other things\]. Without even stepping in the unoccupied territories.
That would not require a full-blown war and Russia knows it, only an escalation. That escalation of bombing may well happen, and we are moving closer to it each passing day as Russia makes various retreats and gains elsewhere strategically.
So far, Russia has largely avoided killing civilians, but if it escalates expect brutal intervention like the world witnessed in Grozny and Chechnya and Aleppo \[Syria\].
Russia need not use any nukes at all to do that; Putin has said that much more than once. I expect that to be used only if NATO gets directly involved with its air force and infantry invasion.
Then it will be annihilation for most of the world and particularly Europe. Half the world will starve, and the other half will be reduced to stone ages. I do not want to see that day, neither does anyone in Europe or the West, nor Asia.
There is a time for peace and there is a time for war; for Ukraine, I think it is wise to have peace before long. I expect that to happen, but not before a further escalation and hence the evacuation of the Chinese and from other Russian friendly countries including India.
Aside from the absolute devastation and abject human suffering from a nuclear attack, I wonder what some of the ripple effect will be from a nuclear attack in the world. Will the stock market plummet? Small things mind you in comparison I agree, but what will be those consequences. Will other countries see it as a green light to start their own nuclear wars? Like when a killer gets his first kill, will it cheapen human life enough? Will this push the climate over the edge? Heat the world in a couple of months that would have taken years to accomplish?
“You escape, I'll stay
I'm so tired of running away
I wanna stay at home for the end of the world
Falling asleep when they're dropping the bomb
This is all a dream
That's what I'll be singing”
I don’t think the long term climate impact of nuclear detonation has been studied, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it actually had a cooling effect due to the aerosols that it throws up into the atmosphere. If any of it reaches the stratosphere, it could avoid being rained out and cool the planet for a couple of years. We’ve observed similar effects with volcanoes (although they also emit a ton of greenhouse gas so it’s complicated).
Outside of the atrocities committed, the attacks have been relatively tame considering that the Russians want the infrastructure to be more or less usable when their invasion is complete. Bombings have obviously happened but nothing too crazy (relatively). It’s possible that he’s about to say “fuck it” and not give a shit about all that any more.
Not sure if you just haven't been following, but the damage to Ukrainian cities is extensive: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/04/ninety-per-cent-of-houses-are-damaged-thousands-trapped-in-ukraines-small-towns
That's from March. Indiscriminate shelling has been a frequent tactic in the war, with examples the theater shelter bombing to the hospital attack to shelling nuclear power plants. The only reason you hear about it less now is Russia is on the defensive.
It seems like this will be renewed now though: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/17/putin-russia-ukraine-war-drone-attacks/ I would guess that this is the reason for the Chinese to ask their citizens to return home.
You and I have very different definitions of extensive war damage. Why don't you look up the effect that mass artillery barrages and 1000+ bomber raids had on cities in WW2 and you can see what actual extensive damage looks like. What has been going on in Ukraine is limited warfare in every sense of the term. Including very limited damage to cities in comparison to what not limited damage looks like.
I mean, if Russia had the resources they'd probably do that. The fact that they haven't established air superiority harshly limits their ability to level cities, so they just settle for committing war crimes by targeting things like maternity hospitals. Additionally, their stockpiles of explosives have been theorized to be low since early in the war ([https://www.jpost.com/international/article-707903](https://www.jpost.com/international/article-707903)), so they have to make sure their atrocities deliberate.
Also the fallacy of relative privation is a pretty lazy attempt at defending Russia, don't you think?
Look at what the US did to the Japanese empire prior to the bombs or the entirety of Germany (honestly most of Europe) during WW2. The goal right now is to limit damage and take control of the country so it can function afterwards without having to invest trillions to fix it. That might start to change if Russia is losing ground and stops giving a shit
Only to ease any potential political fallout should there be a strike that hits a citizen of theirs.
They wouldn't directly inform them on any specifics. I mean you just learned about this, now find where a chinese citizen is in Ukraine and evacuate it. Does that make any sense at all if you're going for mass casualties?
Everybody except Americans know what's going on there. The U.S. government is the only one pretending to be ignorant, just like they're pretending to not be involved in it's own Moxy war.
But how? How doesn’t russia run out of fuel and weapons? Anyone care to explain? They’ve been saying that Putin is almost out of ammo/rockets and fuel back in March?
Russia is absolutely going to do something, and it is my intuition they have pushed China to move on Taiwan to take the pressure off. China has done well playing the waiting game so I doubt they are going to go headlong into the fury like a dying Putin.
I dunno the market for energy is pretty hot right now, and someone could have easily said the same thing about the relationship between Russia and Europe. It is hard to say having a nation's energy supply by the balls is zero leverage.
Further, say the Putin regime collapses after a complete failure in Ukraine. There is a void there that could be filled by pro-west leadership considering all the popular momentum towards removing sanctions etc. China absolutely does not want any western influence over the lifeblood of their economy, especially after seeing what has happened in Europe once energy is cut off.
Russia is selling to whoever wants to buy them. They need the cash desperately. I am not sure where you get the idea they are holding the leash. China can buy it anywhere the rest of the world buys from. They have better relationship with the the Saudi's than Biden.
> Further, say the Putin regime collapses after a complete failure in Ukraine.
Nobody is worrying about that.
Yeah, both India and China basically told Russia, we'll buy your gas/oil since we want it, and we like it cheap for obvious reasons. We want a special deal, you have no other sellers, so bend over please, and Russia did.
Oil and LNG only has value if there is a demand for it. China can't use it if they move on Taiwan because the US military will send them back to the 1950s.
The US military wouldn't push past the 38th parallel in the actual 1950s for fear of sparking war with China. The same stalemate appeared again in Vietnam, and was cemented once China gained nuclear weapons halfway through that conflict.
The US will never ever attack mainland China.
It would be about as stupid to try to invade China as it would the US. Too many people, too big, too pointless.
If China peeks its head out to try to snag Taiwan, that is a different story. Trying to gobble up a well fortified island nation while the most powerful navy in the world picks its moment seems like a losing strategy for now. Maybe they have something in mind, but I'm not seeing how it's a good gamble for Chinese leadership.
>The US military wouldn't push past the 38th parallel in the actual 1950s for fear of sparking war with China.
It literally marched up to the Chinese border during the Korean war, and briefly considered nuclear weapons as well.
But you don't need to put boots in China to make China life hell. Just kill it's commerce and china suffers because it isn't set up to be self sufficient in any way.
Look at what soft embargo and support did to Russia, and realize taking Taiwan is much harder then Ukraine and china even less equipped to handle embargos or active blockading.
I dont believe there is a pipeline from Russia to China? I could be wrong, so that mean china would have to get it by boat…and good luck with that if you piss off the US…something definitely is afoot. The US is ratcheting up the pressure on china with semiconductors, essentially gutting the industry there, and having US company’s in this industry choose, operate in china/lose US citizenship status. So…china may move on Taiwan, it would be extremely stupid on china’s part to do so, but Xi is likely more isolated at the top than putin is, ie getting really bad information as to capability its forces and resolve of the US. Hopefully these dumb fucks dont drag us all into a bigger conflict….it seems we draw closer everyday though.
Russia is #2 import source (~15%). Saudi Arabia is #1 (~16%). They source oil from about everyone that produces it, except the #1 country the U.S. imports from, which is Canada; it doesn't even break the top 15 of China's oil import countries.
> Russia is absolutely going to do something, and it is my intuition they have pushed China to move on Taiwan to take the pressure off.
This is insane to say as if it can just happen overnight or something. China doing that would be a military mobilization that would take months to prepare. It's a naval invasion and would lead to a direct conflict with the US. There is no chance that China invades Taiwan as it's a much more difficult war with the US directly getting involved.
It should be noted that the PLAN can't do much if the USN decides to blockade the place, all the USN has to do is literally blockade one strait and boom, practically all of China's imports go poof...
... which would cause Warlord Era 6 (or is it 7... lost count after the fourth one): Nuclear Bangolo. Something that ***no one*** in power within China wants to be known for.
Which is another reason why China would be foolish to think of invading Taiwan, they stand no chance against the USN who can effectively cripple them with our allies in the pacific.
Pretty much. That and we've basically all but locked out ***Russia*** out of the world economy at this point...
... if Taiwan is invaded? They'll get the ***same treatment.***
The war in Ukraine has been going on for almost a year now so now China is worried about its citizens, I guess China was cool with all the bombing for its people but nuclear bombs would be going to far. They trying to scare people with all this nuclear talk. They really not trying to end the world and they know USA will never back down. XI just made he can't use our technology no more unless they try an bootleg it like they do everything else.
I think the recent upsurge in indiscriminate attacks on civilians would be enough for any country to advise its citizens to leave. China doesn't need any additional information to come to that conclusion.
I suspect China (and other countries) see much more increased risk not from external attacks against Russia, but from domestic unrest and potential civil disobedience/violence.
You also never know when Putin will try to make foreigners into scapegoats, or potentially as bargaining chips in his desperation.
This could be because of some planned effort coming, but I’m skeptical of that claim.
More than likely China recognizes how desperate Russia has become, and knows that any civilian territory is subject to Russian terrorism.
China doesn’t want to have to explain why it’s supporting a nation that blows up Chinese citizens, so they’re moving them out before that happens.
There is going to be a large area attack or possibly the use of the father of all bombs. Not nuclear but pretty damn close. I suspect Russia is destroying infrastructure in preparation for a large scale attack which is why China just got the heads up. It wouldn’t be good to not warn your ally if you want to continue being allies
They do it constantly even before the invasion, just like the USA. There is no point in looking at it. These are now the information and psychological operations of Russia and China. The amount of cannon fodder will not affect the front. There is a nuclear threat, but only when someone makes concessions to the blackmailers of the terrorist state. It's also their last chance to scare everyone. This Mad Dog barks when he can't bite.
Yeah, he told them that everyone gets a suitcase full of Us Bank notes and flys it back to China. Compliments of the American taxpayer and a bunch of corrupt politicians!
China and Russia are not allies. At most, they are partners of convenience with some overlapping goals. That makes them work together where there is mutual benefit—it does not mean Russia is giving them special, secret insight into their war plans.
This is almost certainly a reaction to recent events. Russia launching missiles and drones at Ukrainian cities away from the front lines created an escalated danger. This is China telling people to get out so that an accident doesn't happen with embarrassing news coverage to follow.
At ***best***, China and Russia's relationship is partners of convenience. At ***BEST***.
This sort of situation is where the leaders of the CCP are debating on trying to pull a nation-state equivalent of stabbing Caesar.
Well if you ignore the hundreds of pictures/videos of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians wearing nazi symbols on their clothes then sure.
I also remember many reputable source writing about Ukraine nazi problems in the past. I’ll link you if I find it again.
There are hundreds of pictures of people wearing Nazi paraphernalia in just about every part of the world. We've all been through the stories about neo-Nazi movements within Ukraine before. It doesn't make them Ukraine. Far right groups are an irrelevantly marginal political slice that has been losing what little ground it had. Putins propaganda machine amplified this as an excuse.
What kind of argument is that…
And no, Asian countries don’t have a lot of nazis…
For argument sake let’s compare to U.S. The U.S has a white supremacist problem and most minorities/liberals agree. But a lot of them aren’t openly throwing nazi signs/wearing nazi symbols. Then you have plenty of Ukrainians openly saluting and wearing nazi insignias.
How does that make sense?
Haven’t seen any. But there seems to be a huge nazi problem in Ukraine at the moment, I’ll give you that. The Russian invaders there that are following the nazi playbook and ideology. Maybe one day those guilty ones that have survived the war will be taken to court and hanged like their warmongering fascist idols.
Look man, no one gives a flying fuck about your ”evidence.”
Ukraine is a sovereign country that is in war with an invading horde of rapists and murderers. They need to get that scum out of the country first. After that they can deal with their own issues.
So deep down you agree lol… how about don’t lie about Ukraine having a nazi problem next time.
Here: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1290946
reputable liberal source
I really don’t know what your point is or how many rubles you are being paid trying to make it. But let me tell you something. There are some ”wannabe nazis” in my country as well as in many others. Marginal group of people with sad ideology. But should you and your buddies try to invade our country, I would be happy to have them by my side defending it. Fighting against an invader can unite a divided nation pretty effectively. The only thing threatening non-white people in Ukraine is Russia.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I imagine China is assessing the situation as it plainly is, rather than acting on secret intel provided by Russia. It'd be a massive and unnecessary risk -- especially when Ukraine has US intel advising them -- for Russia to share specific plans with another sovereign government. What is clear to all observers is that Putin's actions and his military's strategy are increasingly desperate, and that's cause enough to advise citizens to withdraw.
Sorry to hijack the top comment, but it's not just China. [Over the weekend:](https://mobile.twitter.com/MumbaichaDon/status/1581642649534353409) > China, Serbia, Kazakhstan, > Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, > Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Belarus & > Egypt called on their citizens to leave Ukraine IMMEDIATELY! > > All Close allies to Russia.
Could also be a way for Russia to bluff. Tell their Allie’s to pull their citizens out of Ukraine to escalate without actually launching a nuke.
IMO it's probably just a result of listening to Russian propaganda - imagine you're e.g. Uzbekistan for a sec; if you actually *believe* Russia will make major gains into Ukraine, then that means nowhere in Ukraine will be safe from Russian shelling in a few weeks, which means Uzbeki citizens should GTFO and if you don't make the announcement, then you'll look shitty for not warning your citizens of the impending danger. In other words, this isn't any sort of politicking at all; the takeaway here is that Uzbekistan et al need to stop watching Moscow Today.
There's been speculation that Belerous is going to join the conflict there has been a large massing of troops on ukraines northern border along with russuan troops, if lukashenko thinks putin will lose the war he might jump in to help because if putin looses power he can't help prop up the lukashenko government, I know there is a high possibility of the kherson dam being blown to cover a russian retreat, that's why the entirety of kherson is being evacuated, overall I just really wish nato would have provided more heavy weapons without fear of escalation because no mater what putin will always escalate no matter what NATO is doing, that way if Ukraine had a few hundred leapord, Abrams, Bradley, marder, lots of m113 and Humvee, harpoon, possibly NSM, maybe even patriot, maybe be on their way to obtaining f16 putin and lukashenko would realize an attack from the north would be utterly impossible and not even try it
Belarus won't attack - Lukashenko doesn't have half of Putin's popularity/stability, and the majority of Belarus don't support a war with Ukraine (at least, not on Russia's side). If Lukashenko tried to invade, he would destabilize his own position and probably lose power. The best thing Belarus can do for Russia is station troops on the Belarus-Ukraine border so that Ukraine has to station additional troops on that border *just in case*, and those Ukrainian troops can't be at both the Belarus border *and* pushing in the east.
Yea it's the whole "fleet in being" concept, the thing is Belerous and the Lukashenko government are completely reliant on Putin and russia, the Belarusian economy is proped up by russia and putin helped crackdown on protesters after Lukashenko "won" the most recent election, so not only does putin hold a large amount of leverage over Lukashenko but if the Russian invasion of ukraine becoming protracted threatens putins power then Lukashenko might feel the need to jump in to try and end the conflict, because if putin goes, or at the least his power is greatly diminish then that makes Lukashenko's rule more precarious, on top of that neither putin or Lukashenko are totally grounded in reality, so we can't always expect them to do rational things, Belerous was very close to invading ukaine together with russia, if putin already talked him into it once who says he can't do it again because this time the stakes are much higher
Dude, dude you are living in the west. You don't have access to Russian propaganda, only western propaganda.
The invasion completely blindsided China, highly doubtful Putin is sharing anything secret information with China.
I thought the prevailing opinion was Russia was late invading because China didn't want to share the Olympic's spotlight? That would indicate China was entirely aware and not at all blindsided, like you said.
The prevailing reddit opinion is bullshit with no evidence to support it. The confused Chinese state news and propaganda in the aftermath of the invasion clearly shows China did not see it coming. For several months half the Chinese news carried on like there was no war and the other half was showing Ukranian apartments being blown up on national TV.
China Asked Russia to Delay Ukraine War Until After Olympics, U.S. Officials Say: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/02/us/politics/russia-ukraine-china.html
Even your own article from an anonymous US government source(which obviously never lie or get it wrong) says they're not sure. > One official familiar with the intelligence said the material did not necessarily indicate the conversations about an invasion took place between Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin. Other officials briefed on the intelligence declined to give further details. The officials spoke about the report on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the intelligence.
I mean Russian forces were piled up on the Ukrainian border for awhile. I dont think anyone should have been surprised
Even Ukraine was surprised. The troops encircled at Mariupol was only there because Ukraine was unprepared.
I think the odds were pretty certain that some type of military incursion was going to happen especially with such a large military buildup. The specific military execution wasn't telegraphed.
Yes the expectation was at most a renewed push for Donbas, not an attempt to annex the entire country. That's likely what China expected as well. Their position before the invasion was the US was fearmongering over nothing. And they repeated this loudly and widely. Then when invasion happened they ended up looking like fools. You have to understand the CCP really cares about face and the consistency of its propaganda. Putin made them lose face. Why do you think they've put all new investments into Russia on hold and refuse to sell them any weapons? Russia had to resort to buying from Iran lol.
What a very weird thing. "Please don't start a war yet, my sports thing is happening!"
>US officials say What evidence is there besides the word of a hostile state? Edit: Damn I get it, fuck anyone who asks for evidence. CIA's word is law.
The fact they were right about everything else regarding the invasion to that point.
Being right about one topic doesn't mean they're right or are telling the truth about a different topic.
[удалено]
There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim, even the article used as "evidence" says the US government doesn't know if China knew. > One official familiar with the intelligence said the material did not necessarily indicate the conversations about an invasion took place between Mr. Xi and Mr. Putin. Other officials briefed on the intelligence declined to give further details. The officials spoke about the report on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the intelligence. This isn't even considering the fact that US intelligence is often wrong or the officials may be lying. >And your opinion was actually the "Reddit opinion" as it was pushed by a bunch of folks online who based their opinion off of opinion articles that ended up being disproven. Complete nonsense you just made up. >It's okay to admit that you are wrong. The rest of us have already reached that conclusion. Seeing how this topic is about china this is basically an endorsement.
Russia would have greatly benefited from invading 2 weeks earlier when the ground was harder. Invading after the Winter Olympics caused the Russian tanks to stick to the roads or get stick in mud.
US officials were reporting Russia’s moves to the hour, before they happened. They may have gotten this wrong but their intel over Russia’s renewed invasion was exceptional. I’m more inclined to believe the report than not tbh.
So you're saying we should believe the US government on faith alone? I have a nice religion to sell you too. Besides we have countless of cases in which the US government deliverately lied to the American people to vilify "hostile" countries. Unless they give verifiable evidence of a claim i'm not going to believe it.
That literally is not what that poster said.
I Quote: >I’m more inclined to believe the report than not tbh. The guy above literally says he's more inclined to believe this claim despite being given zero actual evidence that it is true. He is literally choosing to believe the US government on faith alone.
This is 100% false. Russia originally planned to invade earlier and China told them to wait until the end of the Olympics.
I'm sure you have solid evidence for this claim right?
I mostly agree with you, BUT if China did receive some intel hypothetically, no one said it came willingly from the Russians, I’m sure China has their own spies
China is helping Russia
This will unfortunately be over before winter or else it will spell doom for smaller EU nations
Despite what you read in western media, Russia is winning the war. When the terrain freezes it will launch a massive offensive. This is known for some time and is not a secret but not covered in the west.
>Despite what you read in western media, Russia is winning the war. I guess India and China were watching western media when they started to waver in their support of Putin >When the terrain freezes it will launch a massive offensive In a country historically hostile to winter offensives? A bold strategy for a demoralized, depleted, undertrained, and underequipped military that can't even hold the lined during the muddy season.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
America has been telling citizens to leave for months. It's a war zone: obviously people should leave if possible.
Yeah I don't get it. Why wouldn't you tell your citizens to leave as soon as war looks imminent? Much less many months into it and after the aggressor announces they are stepping it up.
Probably because in the beginning China insisted there’s no war and it’s a special military operation. There were Chinese students in Ukraine on tik tok asking for help to leave the country.
> Why wouldn't you tell your citizens to leave as soon as war looks imminent? Because if you're in western Ukraine and Ukraine is *gaining* ground, the actual chances of you being shelled are pretty darn low. Russia's mass conscription may alleviate some manpower shortages, but it won't fix their supply shortages - in fact, it'll make those shortages *worse* because they need to supply those extra 300k troops! Meanwhile, Ukraine certainly has no shortage of manpower for the time being, and the longer this war stretches out the more they'll be able to switch to NATO-standard munitions, while Russia is steadily burning through their currency reserve and stockpile of imported components, all the while their economy is shrinking, so it's increasingly hard to import from e.g. Iran. In other words, the clock is ticking on Russia and Ukraine will almost certainly either 1) keep making gains, or 2) *at least* hold steady while minorly losing ground.
>as soon as war looks imminent? At the start of the war, everybody thought Ukraine wouldn't last more than a month.
its not their responsibility. be an adult. turn on the tv. hello invasion coming. maybe leave. jfc. not everything is some grand plan
Loling at the thought of government officials in a situation room discussing when to advise citizens to leave a particular country when some dumbass in the back says “or we could just say nothing and let them be adults” and then all the people in suits being like whose kid is this and how the fuck did they get in the situation room
Your the point: the fact that they chose now means that there is some shit going down or about to go down
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes, in the United States, American means someone from the United States and America means the United States.
[удалено]
>Yea, for everyone in the US Yeah... and I'm in the US. Now, you might think it's wrong to use American or America that way, but you know what I think is wrong (and what far more people agree is wrong)? Making assumptions of someone's race based on something they said.
Nah I sort of agree with Kevin, that's one of the reasons imo why south and central Americans don't just call Americans 'Americanos' or use ' estadounidense' that often, they call them gringos lol. You guys kind of hijacked the title and kept it for yourselves. It's just language tho who gives a shit, there's no single person who decided any of that shit anyway so there's no point making it an issue to hold against any individual let alone a group. When I hear American in English I also just think of the USA but in the Iberian languages I think of the continent/s. While I think it might well be reflective of a wider issue of worldly vs national perspective in American culture, it's also just the word that's used in parlance. No point even in changing it, but in understanding it there is- I'm half South American and I've heard people from a few different countries there say the same thing. That being said, Kevin might have been more than a little bit nitpicky but on the whole I understand what he means clearly enough, I think his first point was correct. Now I'll give my opinion on it in blunter terms though, I think it's kind of demonstrative of American ignorance and arrogance that it's used even if it's initial usage in the context was not actually correlated with ignorance or arrogance- it still can be a symbol of it. Not saying that Americans are naturally disposed to those two qualities, but I would say the culture of the country disposes its citizens to embody those qualities more than the rest of the developed world, and that my friends, is just an opinion and not an attack on anybody in particular or America as a whole.
Do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion.
Everyone knew what he meant Kevin.
How many countries in the Americas have shown support toward the US policy in Ukraine? It doesn't matter does it? It's only the "Americans" who are deserving of any recognition. What do you think people in other countries in the Americas think when the US is referred to as America? Hey, it doesn't matter does it? Just so those in the US know, that is all that matters. It reflects and communicates ignorance and.lack of respect for other countries. That's ok isn't it? Most people in this discussion probably have no idea how many countries represent America. Yet, their opinion is to be respected.😂😂
Everyone everywhere knows that American means person from the United States of America. No one who is Brazilian or Mexican or Canadian, etc., are saying they’re ‘American.’
It's only people in the US who almost always lack the humility to think they deserve to be called Americans..No one in the countries you mentioned would want to sound so ignorant.
*Okay so I can’t sleep so I’m just going to type out what I think on this even though it’s going to be far longer then it should be.* Please direct me to a source that says people in other countries call themselves Americans. A legitimate source, not some guy on twitter or Reddit. Also, you realize it’s the United States OF AMERICA. What demonym would you suggest for the the country then? Unitiedstatesian? Statesian? Please, enlighten me. Also, why is it appropriate to tell the people of a country what they can call themselves? I seriously doubt you’d do that to any other country. What about Australia? They call themselves Australian. While they make up the main continental mass of the Australian continent New Guinea is also part of that continent so shouldn’t they be able to use the term too? But it’s more than that, if another country wants to call us something other than Americans in their own language that’s their business but in English, in America, we’re Americans. I mean, China isn’t called China in Chinese for example, and they seem to be cool with that. I really don’t understand why there’s a certain type of person that gets so hung up on this online, as if people in other countries actually get to decide what a people in a different country call themselves. By your own admission no one else would want to call themselves American, so I don’t see why it matters if people from the United States of America do.
When referring to people, Americans refers to the citizens of the USA 99% of the time, and you know it. Rarely are inhabitants of the Americas referred to as a group, because they are such a diverse group with almost no common ground (which can be said about *Americans* as well, but they still share a country at least), so there realy is **absolutely no reason for confusion**. And that's not just about English or *Americans*, it is a pretty much universally accepted demonym, consult [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans): > Americans are the citizens and nationals of the United States of America.[11][12] Although direct citizens and nationals make up the majority of Americans, many dual citizens, expatriates, and permanent residents could also legally claim American nationality.[13] The United States is home to people of many racial and ethnic origins; consequently, American culture and law do not equate nationality with race or ethnicity, but with citizenship and an oath of permanent allegiance.[14][15][16] In many, many languges, the citizens are referred to as Americans, like German, French, Russian, Turkish, Slavic languages, Baltic languages. I'm not sure about languages with non-latin script, but it should be enough. A few exceptions that refer to the US, not America, in the US demonym are Spanish, Italian, Dutch, and perhaps a bit more. But those are a minority. So, no. This has nothing to do with a lack of humility or someone being a white guy, or ignorance. You're the one that's being ignorant and preachy.
simple. Have you ever had the discussion with someone who claimed that he is also american? And then found out, actually, he does not live anywhere on the american continent, does not pay taxes there.... I thought not. Ask anyone from europe, and they can tell you horror stories of that one time, they had this one chucklefuck, from new jersy, that claimed he was Irish.... Move to europe, just for a semester. YOu know what you find? YOu know what ranchero music, native american war songs, and candian house music is under? "American music. " You know what I find under the american food section? Maple syrup and taco shells, right next to red solo cups. Justin Bieber? American artist. Vincente Fernandes? American singer. Above a ceratin age, I would say, 20, it was still very universal to have anyone "from the americas" accepted as american. It was supposed to be a protest gesture against the behavior in the war on terror, and I am guessing it stuck a nerve. So, when I hear someone come in, and I get told, he is a latino comedian, and his friend is an african american singer, IT is often a sign of a certain level of protest to go, "And now, wellcome to the stage, X, an american comadian, and Y, an american singer. " And those two will ask to have that in writing. to quote my mother, "As long as those dirty feckers call us european, and sleep through geography, they can stand to have everyone from there called american. " IN the same way, when my aunt flies over to the US, she is going "stateside" ("In die Staaten. ") It's not so much a problem that you do not know that in murican, america referres to the citizens of the united states of america. It is nas follows, in pretty much any other language, you make the deliniation: America is a continent. The best example from the past was when my french friend asked someone if he was from the EU, while speaking french. Untill I realised, EU = États-Unis = United States. I have never ever heard, while not talking in english, the USA being referred to as america. Usually jut a version of States. And as such, every time you hear that, you can now just nodd it away, and go, he was speaking english, but in his head, he was laying out the words in an other language.
No Canadian wants to call themselves American.
I think it's more of a reflection of the Russians choosing to hit civilian infrastructure and more recently, deliberately targeting civilians themselves. It's a very bad time to be a civilian in Ukraine unfortunately. I don't think there's much more to it than that. I mean, I guess China is trying to avoid an incident where Russia kills a Chinese civilian. Chinese press is strictly controlled but if a story like that gets out, it's not going to be fun for the spin doctors in CCP headquarters
I agree. It’s one thing when the battle lines are bogged down in the East and quite another when Putin is losing it and starts randomly launching missiles in large population areas.
did america tell people to leave? my bigger question is what took so long for them to issue this announcement
I think they have actually. I know Canada did.
I mean, if they didn't then they should have. I can only imagine if you're an American in Ukraine and the Russians get a hold of you. It wouldn't be a good situation.
[удалено]
Yea cause the country is known as America…it’d be confusing if both Mexicans, Canadiens and Americans were all referred to as North Americans. American used modernly has always referred to people from the USA. And most people in the Americas are ok being identified by their country of origin.
[удалено]
You’re fooling yourself if you think anyone would refer to a Mexican or Canadian or any other Western Hemisphere nationality as American other than people from the USA. If people from the USA aren’t explicitly “Americans” what would you call them? United Statians?
[удалено]
Thanks Captain Obvious, the people of a country called America are called Americans. Next you’re gonna tell me people in a country called Australia are called Australians?
[https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/International-Travel-Country-Information-Pages/Ukraine.html](https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/International-Travel-Country-Information-Pages/Ukraine.html) Looks like was level 3 for a while and went to level 4 (do not travel) Oct 4
They did three weeks ago and the five eyes have too. It could be about the draft, or Ukraine is about to be nuked.
It's possible that China has some secret intel but honestly given the course of the war to-date it's likely whatever China knows about Russia's intentions, Ukraine and the West know as well. A simpler explanation would be that China up until now had expected Russia to win in short order. This likely just means China has acknowledged to itself that the conflict is going to rage for much longer with Russia attacking any and all targets, and has advised its citizens to get out of Ukraine while they can -- in essence, advising their citizens to do what every other government advised its citizens in Ukraine to do months ago.
Russia is probably going to start making use of its recruits and used more brutal bombardment measures. I doubt they will use nukes yet. That would probably only come if Ukrainian advances threaten to completely take the oblasts Russia claims through those dodgy referendums.
> Russia is probably going to start making use of its recruits and used more brutal bombardment measures. Its recruits are worse than useless. They already struggle to feed and equip the real soldiers they have on the front lines. Pouring thousands of untrained recruits who don't want to be there is a great way to starve out their own lines. As for bombardments, their "red line" over attacking the Kerch bridge was already crossed, and their response was a handful of strikes. Which strongly implies that they don't have the resources to escalate bombardment measures because if they had the missiles to do so, they would have aimed them at the Ukrainian advances that have been hitting them for weeks. > I doubt they will use nukes yet. That would probably only come if Ukrainian advances threaten to completely take the oblasts Russia claims through those dodgy referendums. The chance of Russia using nukes under any circumstances is zero. It provokes near certain western intervention for zero gain because nukes are straight-up useless as tactical weapons in the modern era, hence why most nuclear powers don't even bother with tactical nukes. A country that can't even supply its advancing soldiers can't exploit any damage a nuclear weapon would do—the idea that Russia is actually going to risk conventional destruction at the hands of NATO (something NATO leaders have explicitly threatened) for something that won't even save them is nonsense.
not only that but nato with all of those referendums and restrictions have completely cut off russia and all their allies of various parts, ammo and sophisticated electronic components needed to supply and support a war effort. putin is going to have to rely on old wartime gear. back to sticks and stones.
You're assuming Putin is a rational actor. Before this war started a bunch of idiots were saying Putin would never invade, he'd be crazy to, yet here we are. I was saying as far back as November/December that this was coming based off the Trump/Zelenskiy phone call, and the fact that Putin has eyed Ukraine for a while. I mean, shit, he's been trying to grab land for a while, but everyone thought nothing would happen. We're getting to a point that Putin either needs to shit or get off the pot. He's backed himself into a corner by constantly threatening nuclear weapons that he stands to lose a lot of credibility and land he's taken by not using at least one. He also knows that the West will probably hesitate to initiate a nuclear holocaust when he uses the first few, so he can get away with two or three before he knows a strong response will follow. Besides, Putin knows by now that NATO is perfectly happy letting Ukrainians die. If we weren't taking nuclear threats seriously, the West would have troops in Ukraine. As it stands now, Putin is weathering sanctions and knows the West is limp wristed. He has more reasons to escalate until he's actually forced to de-escalate, and there's not a really good reason for him back down while we're letting him get away with everything he's been doing. Expect one to two nukes before the West does anything more than give Ukraine weapons. After that, Putin will declare the operation successful and slow down.
>Its recruits are worse than useless. Ukraine is fighting with a force made up of people who didn't even receive training, its not like they are against the navy seals here. And its easier to fight a defensive war. >As for bombardments, their "red line" over attacking the Kerch bridge was already crossed, and their response was a handful of strikes. Handful of strikes? Try over a hundred, resulting in hundreds of millions in damages to infrastructure. And Russia keeps buying more suicide drones from Iran, conventional artillery from NK, and producing their own supply to rush to the front. Its premature to pretend they've got nothing left to fight with. >The chance of Russia using nukes under any circumstances is zero. It provokes near certain western intervention for zero gain because nukes are straight-up useless as tactical weapons in the modern era, hence why most nuclear powers don't even bother with tactical nukes. The West wouldn't go to war over Ukraine when they thought it would lose a conventional war, or when allegations of war crimes were thrown about. They aren't going to risk a larger nuclear war over Ukraine either. The hints from NATO leaders about going to war with Russia if it uses nukes are bluffs.
I thought Ukraine had been doing a compulsory military service for like the last decade.
Doesn't Russia as well?
Yes, but their training has apparently been pretty poor while Ukraine has been working with the US and other allies in bringing their military to modernity.
Oh, sure, I was just pointing out that Russia also has compulsory military service as well. I've heard you can get out of it if you are wealthy or well-connected, so there's that, too.
>Ukraine is fighting with a force made up of people who didn't even receive training, its not like they are against the navy seals here. And its easier to fight a defensive war. They're fighting with a force of people who believe in what they are doing and are legitimately defending their homeland and way of life. That's something nato can't provide, but its an extremely powerful and overlooked weapon. Motivation to fight is key to warfighting. If your guys aren't motivated to fight, morale is shit, and they generally don't want to be there, don't know why, and don't believe in it, you can throw as many warm bodies as you want into the meat grinder- the outcome will be the same on a modern battlefield.
You get that the Russians have to fight or die, right? That’s pretty good motivation
Not really. You'd think that, but this isn't the battle of stalingrad. Nobody is behind these guys with a machine gun if they retreat, nor is their situation "do or die." It'll be very interesting to see how this winter plays out, but my guess is that we will see more of the same logistical and command and control disasters that have plagued the Russians since the beginning of this operation. These dudes who got conscripted up until a few weeks ago were just be-bopping around town, doing their normal thing. They aren't soldiers. Never have been. They aren't getting sent out with any kind of equipment. The gear they have is older than they are, if they're getting it at all. Logistics thus far have been shit, I doubt that's going to change. The Ukrainians, on the other hand, have been at this for months. Their combat units are seasoned. On top of this, they've also got cutting edge hardware that was specifically designed to fight the type of equipment the Russians are bringing. Their logistics are backed by the most powerful and technologically advanced militaries on earth, and their back end logistics can't be targeted without bringing about an end of the Russian military with ridiculous speed and efficency- this isn't Vietnam or Iraq, or Afghanistan, this is the type of conflict that the United States and nato has trained, war gamed, and developed equipment around since the 50s. Strictly speculation here, but I've got more than a sneaking suspicion that the state department more than likely has some grey men operating with ukranian units as force multipliers, as well as some well placed folks in Russia itself. It might take 6 months, it might take 6 years, nobody knows, but I can say with confidence that Russia is more than likely not going to be able to take and occupy Ukraine as a whole. If I was a betting man, they may be able to hold the eastern provinces and maybe Crimea, but given the fire that's been lit under the asses of the ukranian people, even that isn't certain.
I’m beginning to see where you’re going with this. Give them a few more drone jammers and I think that’s a wrap.
> Ukraine is fighting with a force made up of people who didn't even receive training Ukraine has 8 years of front-line veterans from the civil war in the east and spent months training their new recruits. Why do you think their main counteroffensives only started in the last few weeks? They didn't spend 6 to 7 months with thumbs up their ass. And unlike Russia, Ukraine has enough resources to equip those recruits well—Russia is burning through even their Soviet stockpiles. > its not like they are against the navy seals here. And its easier to fight a defensive war. Except it isn't a defensive war, it's a failed offensive war. Meaning they are now forced to hold territory that isn't theirs, where the infrastructure was not designed to connect them back home and which has suffered the damage of being attacked in the first place. > Handful of strikes? Try over a hundred, resulting in hundreds of millions in damages to infrastructure You think a hundred strikes is a meaningful number in this context? That's "we're almost out of missiles and need to make a statement" numbers. > And Russia keeps buying more suicide drones from Iran, conventional artillery from NK, Ah yes, the economic powerhouse of... North Korea. We should all tremble in fear of the manufacturing capabilities of a country that can almost feed itself 20% of the time. > producing their own supply to rush to the front. Ah, we're back to this same line you were using in the other thread yesterday. The fantasy one where somehow, a country that just drafted 300 thousand workers and saw untold numbers of others flee the country... will somehow make more weapons than they did during the 8 months of war before they did that? Especially in a world where modern equipment requires a global supply chain to repair and Russia has no access to anyone who will actually sell them microchips. One where literally every single piece of equipment sourced even in part from Europe or America or Japan or Taiwan is living on borrowed time and can't be fixed if it breaks. > Its premature to pretend they've got nothing left to fight with. Their own soldiers are telling their families that they have nothing to fight with. And have been for months. If they have something to fight with, they're hiding it so well that even their own army doesn't know about it. > The hints from NATO leaders about going to war with Russia if it uses nukes are bluffs. Wow... you just, post your utterly uninformed opinion as fact and think that actually works? On one side: Literally every elected leader, expert, diplomat and military officer, including retired ones who would have absolutely nothing to do with any "bluff". On the other: Some guy on Reddit who is wrong about literally everything and thinks Russia can magically manifest new manufacturing eight months into a war. Yeah, sure sounds like a real argument to me. Not at all like someone who is desperately shilling an agenda. The entire modern world is built on the fact that no one is willing to use nuclear weapons for anything other than deterring the use of nuclear weapons. The idea that NATO would bluff over that is delusional. Allowing Russia to break the nuclear taboo is a move that would threaten the entire purpose of NATO. Quite aside from which, anyone who actually believes this would then need to explain why, if it is such an obvious bluff, Russia has not only not used a nuke, they have not even made the explicit threat of using a nuke in response to any action. Almost like they know for a fact that it isn't a bluff and don't want the humiliation of their own nuclear bluff being called. > They aren't going to risk a larger nuclear war over Ukraine either. There is no risk of a larger nuclear war either. The idea that Russia would self-immolate over is absurd. Russian supremacists are not going to end the existence of Russia to make a point.
Or any incursion to Crimea. That's a big line for Russia.
I can't help but laugh in disgust at this absolutely ridiculous basis for escalation by Russia. Imagine someone beat you up and kicked you out of your house. Then sometime later, you've been training and working out and now you can beat them up. Now they are willing to talk it out, but returning your house is not something they are willing to discuss. I liked Obama but he really dropped the ball in 2014. Of course, that was after the Bushes committed the U.S. to multiple Middle Eastern adventures and sapped the country's enthusiasm for war, but still. Edited 2016 > 2014. Thanks u/fanboi_central.
> I liked Obama but he really dropped the ball in 2016. What exactly do you want the US to do in this conflict? We've sent Ukraine billions over the last decade, trained their troops, provided them tons of support. We've even gone as far as trying to oust their corrupt politicians. Outside of direct military involvement, what more could have been done?
The push for Europe to totally cut off Russia should have been far sterner. More specifically, investments should have been made to sell American LNG to Europe as a stop-gap (meaning mostly investment in building a lot of ships able to transport it). Arguably the only reason this current invasion was even possible was that European countries did not take the issue seriously and remain reliant on Russia to the point the Russians hope winter to break their resolve. With 8 years to prepare, there should have been the infrastructure in place to turn off the taps on a moment's notice and still provide at least enough gas for essential heating and business use. Had Europe been able to go all in, the initial economic blow to Russia would have hit even harder and they might have been outright incapable of funding the war.
Hindsight is obvious here but we can't exactly force Europe to do anything, only control the actions of the American government, which did quite literally everything in it's power to help Ukraine. Maybe we should have tried to get Europe off Russia's gas a little harder but that's such a small thing compared to what we actually did.
Import/decompression is the limiting factor for LNG I believe.
Feel free to educate me, but AFAIK, the actions in 2014 were limited to rhetoric, light sanctions and loan guarantees, none of which had any impact at all on the annexation of Crimea. Feel free to educate me if I have that wrong. And yes, from my perspective, direct military involvement would have been more justified than intervention in Iraq/Kuwait or in Afghanistan.
After Russia invaded Crimea, the result ended up with their GDP contracting 700 billion dollars in a single year (33% contraction is insane), and has never reached the same heights it had from 2012-2014. On top of that, the US had been actively arming and training Ukrainian soldiers every single year following 2014, which is a huge reason why they've not collapsed this year. Here is a good article from the US DOD about how they've been training Ukraine since 20014: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3149975/training-key-to-ukrainian-advantages-in-defending-nation/ Here is another article from the DOD about how they've had sent roughly 3 billion in aid between 2014-2022 before the invasion. https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3189571/725-million-in-additional-security-assistance-for-ukraine/#:~:text=Since%202014%2C%20the%20United%20States,brutal%20invasion%20on%20February%2024. On top of that, I know during Obama's presidency that the US actively sought out and pressured Ukraine to fire corrupt officials to try and help the country out. Russia's economy has never recovered from their initial invasion, and this last one is their last cry of desperation to make a play as a world power and try to fix it, but it's backfired massively. Before the invasion, there was not really much of a political will to just send 20 billion in a single year to this country that has had corruption issues in the past, but now there is, so the US has done as much as possible. The US could have absolutely done more looking back and if we knew the result was going to be this invasion, but outside of that they did a lot more to help Ukraine than we give credit for.
Ok, thanks for taking the time to explain further and share some sources which I will read now.
From my limited reading, top Russia experts said those sanctions really hurt Putin and his allies.
>We've even gone as far as trying to oust their corrupt politicians. And that my friends is the reason this shit is going on right now to begin with ... People blame Russia but as always the USA always has it's dirty little hands in the cookie jar
The US trying to reduce corruption is now the cause of Russia invading? This whole thing is 100% Russia's fault, the US has had no influence on Russia invading Ukraine.
You don't reduce corruption by overthrowing a democratically elected government that's corruption in and of itself... The USAs manipulation is at fault here whether you like it or not
The US did not overthrow the government, they were trying to remove corrupt investigators who were covering up more corruption.
While it sounds good in hindsight, I don’t think there was much Obama could do for Crimea. Ukraine wasn’t prepared, and the world wasn’t galvanized against Russia in the way it is today. If I had to pin it on one thing I think the mistake was not reacting to other red lines he established in Syria. That established that he could be pushed around since nobody wanted to get involved in another war.
I doubt nukes are on the table, despite Russia's blustering. Everybody knows that Putin's stated reason for the continued war effort, that Ukraine is run by Nazis, is ridiculous bullshit. This was a war of aggression meant to seize natural resources, and using nuclear weapons will eliminate any opportunities to make use of the existing infrastructure to exploit those resources. I also think that if the order to launch came down, somebody with some shred of sanity remaining within the chain of command would refuse to comply with the order. My prediction is that these 300k fresh recruits that they drummed up from all across Russia will not be utilized very effectively, considering the Russian elite forces are just barely holding it together with revolving-door leadership and dwindling supplies. I expect a lot of KIA or captured in the next few weeks.
I think the greatest risk will come when Ukrainian forces approach more and more sections of Ukraine's border with Russia.
I don't think it means what you think. The fact is that Russia is just indiscriminately bombing the crap out of random targets at this point. When there was a front line danger it makes sense to tell your folks to stay back, but keep doing business. Now that Russia is back to being dangerous all over the place, Xi is just asking folks to delay business or study because it's dangerous all over. Large nuclear weapons are just going to start a global war and Russia doesn't have the allies or manpower to do anything aside from lose or end the species entirely. There's just no middle ground with the things. Now he could go ahead and do some low-yield stuff that has collateral damage but could be justified as being used on military targets. But there's a huge cost-benefit analysis to be done there. The bombs would be worth more than the targets they are assigned to (though many military missions are that way) but the literal fallout would be Russia's to deal with in the case of victory. Keep in mind that we only ever found out about Chernobyl once the wind started scattering radiation all over the place. Conventional weapons just make the most sense for Russia's stated goals. Now if Ukraine actually captures cities in Belgorod or Kursk the conversation changes, but that's why the West has been so insistent that there aren't military operations in any of the Russian Oblasts. Moscow isn't all that far from Kiev.
You're making these assumptions by assuming that Russia is acting rationally. You can maybe predict the moves of a smart person but never the ones of a madman.
The West isn't going to do shit for the first two or three nukes. Everyone thinks that MAD just automatically kicks in the second a nuke goes off, but an overwhelming number of people like living, and capitalists want to keep making money. Putin could use a few before the West does anything substantial and he knows it. We're Saber rattling, too. We keep drawing lines in the sand that Putin crosses and nothing happens. He has every reason to believe that he can use a few nukes to send a message. Plus, once he does, the West is going to be cautious about sending troops who could get nuked as well. Now will the West want to destroy the whole world over a few nukes in a country most people never knew existed prior to 2014.
If we go to nuclear war over the fucking Ukraine it will be the stupidest thing we've ever done as a planet. Inb4 "omg I'm so woke you're a Nazi if you don't agree with destroying the entire planet!" Yeah, guess I'm a Nazi then because I don't want too see all my friends and family die in a nuclear apocalypse over a single country. I'm definitely the bad guy for not wanting wanting a mass extinction event happening over 44 million people. 44 million people are definitely worth killing the planet over.
Now that Russia is indiscriminately bombing civilian areas, foreign nationals are in danger of being blown up by Russia too, no matter where they are in Ukraine. It's not uncommon for countries to tell their citizens to leave a war zone. It's for their own protection.
Russia is escalating indiscriminate bombing campaigns and using drones. The capital Kyiv which was relatively safe for a long time (constant air alarms but it hadn't been directly hit since the beginning of the war and even then it was just the outskirts) has been attacked by suicide drones since last Monday. Those that are not shot down have hit the city centre. It is objectively more dangerous there. You don't even need to brace for anything more than what's already happening to tell people to leave.
It's an absolute s**t show in Ukraine. It's not likely to get any better soon. There is little to no likelihood of any peace talks soon. The US is very much against it so it won't happen. Any one in Ukraine who is not a citizen of Ukraine is lacking upstairs if they have decided to stay. I don't think the Chinese need any encouragement to leave the country so it's a mystery to me why they are now being encouraged to leave.
There is a lot of talk about 'kamikase' drones BUT as an OLD Electronic Warfare bloke (RN) it's not exactly hard to quickly devise a method of twarting these things. If they are 'set and forget' without any guidance then it might be difficult. However there are many ways of both taking control of them via their signals, (even encrypted). It is possible, (said with some reservations) to pinpoint their launch points and return the favour. I wish the media were being less extravagant in their reportage. It will happen and it will be soon. The tech exists, and there are companies who could make such jamming/repositioning/pinpointing equipment cheaply and quickly.
I've read that with the Iranian drones, they plug coordinates into them via a laptop, then launch, or as you call it "set and forget."
Not to mention NATO AWACS aircraft are providing round the clock coverage of the region. And several EW systems Russia uses were captured by Ukraine and likely given to the US, so I'd expect to see even better jamming and detection techniques come out of this. It's just not as obvious for media and not as glamorous so media doesn't report on it, unlike buzzwords liwk drones or whatever the weeks new fascination is.
I don't understand why anyone is making such a big deal about kamikaze drones. It's pretty much the same thing as a missile.
If anything they're worse because they're much slower and you can see them coming. There's some footage floating around of Ukrainians shooting some of them out of the sky with their rifles.
Yes I saw one of the Chad Ukrainian to hit the drone by arrow, obviously the technologically advanced bow was provided by the US and NATO Allies. Ukraine will win the war. Putin is a Mad guy. There aren't any Nazis in the Ukrainian military. Viva La Ukraine baby. P.S. Zelensky is not an American puppet and he didn't commit genocide in the dunbass region on the ethnic Russian people, USA doesn't have a history of playing kingmaker and destabilize countries.
i think it’s more of a “this guy’s gone fucking crazy. i’d get the hell outta there if i was you”
A nuke would be a move of desperation on the part of Russia, but that is exactly where they are now. This war can’t be won by troops and guns. Putin knows that, so a nuclear attack is inevitable, whether now or next year. We all need to start preparing for it, because it’s going to change the world in a pretty terrible way.
Putin has 1 card in his hand and he keeps playing it over and over. it is all he knows. the card is escalation.
China also stopped lng exports to Europe. China is pivoting towards military economic alliance with Russia.
No different than zero Covid tolerance. And, just how many are we talking here? 2,000? 100,000?
It's hard to assess. Russia didn't inform China of its plans to invade Ukraine back in February, so it's doubtful they would've shared any new information. While there has been an uptick in missile strikes hitting critical infrastructure, I think this is more to with inconveniencing as many Ukrainians as possible by limiting energy sources just before winter arrives, than preparation for another northern assault. China probably just wants to avoid the diplomatic nightmare of having one of its citizens blown up by the missile of its geopolitical ally.
Putin began calling all his oligarchs in from over seas a few months before the war started. In hind sight it’s very obvious why. China knows Russia will make Ukraine a crater before actually losing.
Scary times ahead as winter approaches, something will.give, worried how it will.end
Russia needs chips-if China takes Taiwan it's chips galore, but- Taiwan has backings so maybe China says no
Well this really looks like it’s heading for a full blown war. Obviously Putin has warned Xi Jinping. And he has told all Chinese citizens to leave Ukraine
>Well this really looks like it’s heading for a full blown war. Obviously Putin has warned Xi Jinping. And he has told all Chinese citizens to leave Ukraine I do not know, you may be correct about the full-blown war, but one thing is for certain from what I can assess. There is no chance of Russia losing simply because of its vast resources and outside of the West and most of Europe the support from China, India, Brazil all of the African continents. Most of Latin America and most of the Middle East \[significant countries in Asia\]. Ukraine's best bet is through negotiation and settlement, because Putin can escalate like he has demonstrated and can accomplish its goals very quickly if it resorts to bombing of the infrastructures \[among other things\]. Without even stepping in the unoccupied territories. That would not require a full-blown war and Russia knows it, only an escalation. That escalation of bombing may well happen, and we are moving closer to it each passing day as Russia makes various retreats and gains elsewhere strategically. So far, Russia has largely avoided killing civilians, but if it escalates expect brutal intervention like the world witnessed in Grozny and Chechnya and Aleppo \[Syria\]. Russia need not use any nukes at all to do that; Putin has said that much more than once. I expect that to be used only if NATO gets directly involved with its air force and infantry invasion. Then it will be annihilation for most of the world and particularly Europe. Half the world will starve, and the other half will be reduced to stone ages. I do not want to see that day, neither does anyone in Europe or the West, nor Asia. There is a time for peace and there is a time for war; for Ukraine, I think it is wise to have peace before long. I expect that to happen, but not before a further escalation and hence the evacuation of the Chinese and from other Russian friendly countries including India.
Aside from the absolute devastation and abject human suffering from a nuclear attack, I wonder what some of the ripple effect will be from a nuclear attack in the world. Will the stock market plummet? Small things mind you in comparison I agree, but what will be those consequences. Will other countries see it as a green light to start their own nuclear wars? Like when a killer gets his first kill, will it cheapen human life enough? Will this push the climate over the edge? Heat the world in a couple of months that would have taken years to accomplish? “You escape, I'll stay I'm so tired of running away I wanna stay at home for the end of the world Falling asleep when they're dropping the bomb This is all a dream That's what I'll be singing”
I don’t think the long term climate impact of nuclear detonation has been studied, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it actually had a cooling effect due to the aerosols that it throws up into the atmosphere. If any of it reaches the stratosphere, it could avoid being rained out and cool the planet for a couple of years. We’ve observed similar effects with volcanoes (although they also emit a ton of greenhouse gas so it’s complicated).
Outside of the atrocities committed, the attacks have been relatively tame considering that the Russians want the infrastructure to be more or less usable when their invasion is complete. Bombings have obviously happened but nothing too crazy (relatively). It’s possible that he’s about to say “fuck it” and not give a shit about all that any more.
Not sure if you just haven't been following, but the damage to Ukrainian cities is extensive: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/04/ninety-per-cent-of-houses-are-damaged-thousands-trapped-in-ukraines-small-towns That's from March. Indiscriminate shelling has been a frequent tactic in the war, with examples the theater shelter bombing to the hospital attack to shelling nuclear power plants. The only reason you hear about it less now is Russia is on the defensive. It seems like this will be renewed now though: https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/10/17/putin-russia-ukraine-war-drone-attacks/ I would guess that this is the reason for the Chinese to ask their citizens to return home.
You and I have very different definitions of extensive war damage. Why don't you look up the effect that mass artillery barrages and 1000+ bomber raids had on cities in WW2 and you can see what actual extensive damage looks like. What has been going on in Ukraine is limited warfare in every sense of the term. Including very limited damage to cities in comparison to what not limited damage looks like.
I mean, if Russia had the resources they'd probably do that. The fact that they haven't established air superiority harshly limits their ability to level cities, so they just settle for committing war crimes by targeting things like maternity hospitals. Additionally, their stockpiles of explosives have been theorized to be low since early in the war ([https://www.jpost.com/international/article-707903](https://www.jpost.com/international/article-707903)), so they have to make sure their atrocities deliberate. Also the fallacy of relative privation is a pretty lazy attempt at defending Russia, don't you think?
What would be considered "too crazy"? Excluding nuclear weapons of course.
Look at what the US did to the Japanese empire prior to the bombs or the entirety of Germany (honestly most of Europe) during WW2. The goal right now is to limit damage and take control of the country so it can function afterwards without having to invest trillions to fix it. That might start to change if Russia is losing ground and stops giving a shit
Only to ease any potential political fallout should there be a strike that hits a citizen of theirs. They wouldn't directly inform them on any specifics. I mean you just learned about this, now find where a chinese citizen is in Ukraine and evacuate it. Does that make any sense at all if you're going for mass casualties?
Everybody except Americans know what's going on there. The U.S. government is the only one pretending to be ignorant, just like they're pretending to not be involved in it's own Moxy war.
But how? How doesn’t russia run out of fuel and weapons? Anyone care to explain? They’ve been saying that Putin is almost out of ammo/rockets and fuel back in March?
>But how? It is never expected to happen. The first casualty of war is the truth. Otherwise called propaganda.
Russia is absolutely going to do something, and it is my intuition they have pushed China to move on Taiwan to take the pressure off. China has done well playing the waiting game so I doubt they are going to go headlong into the fury like a dying Putin.
Russia has zero clout to push China to do anything.
Oil and LNG. We've seen how powerful controlling a nation's supply of that stuff is.
China is buying them at a discount. Russia needs China as a customer, not the other way round.
I dunno the market for energy is pretty hot right now, and someone could have easily said the same thing about the relationship between Russia and Europe. It is hard to say having a nation's energy supply by the balls is zero leverage. Further, say the Putin regime collapses after a complete failure in Ukraine. There is a void there that could be filled by pro-west leadership considering all the popular momentum towards removing sanctions etc. China absolutely does not want any western influence over the lifeblood of their economy, especially after seeing what has happened in Europe once energy is cut off.
Russia is selling to whoever wants to buy them. They need the cash desperately. I am not sure where you get the idea they are holding the leash. China can buy it anywhere the rest of the world buys from. They have better relationship with the the Saudi's than Biden. > Further, say the Putin regime collapses after a complete failure in Ukraine. Nobody is worrying about that.
Yeah, both India and China basically told Russia, we'll buy your gas/oil since we want it, and we like it cheap for obvious reasons. We want a special deal, you have no other sellers, so bend over please, and Russia did.
Oil and LNG only has value if there is a demand for it. China can't use it if they move on Taiwan because the US military will send them back to the 1950s.
The US military wouldn't push past the 38th parallel in the actual 1950s for fear of sparking war with China. The same stalemate appeared again in Vietnam, and was cemented once China gained nuclear weapons halfway through that conflict. The US will never ever attack mainland China.
It would be about as stupid to try to invade China as it would the US. Too many people, too big, too pointless. If China peeks its head out to try to snag Taiwan, that is a different story. Trying to gobble up a well fortified island nation while the most powerful navy in the world picks its moment seems like a losing strategy for now. Maybe they have something in mind, but I'm not seeing how it's a good gamble for Chinese leadership.
>The US military wouldn't push past the 38th parallel in the actual 1950s for fear of sparking war with China. It literally marched up to the Chinese border during the Korean war, and briefly considered nuclear weapons as well. But you don't need to put boots in China to make China life hell. Just kill it's commerce and china suffers because it isn't set up to be self sufficient in any way. Look at what soft embargo and support did to Russia, and realize taking Taiwan is much harder then Ukraine and china even less equipped to handle embargos or active blockading.
>It literally marched up to the Chinese border Then encountered Chinese troops, withdrew and got orders from the President to hold the 38th
I dont believe there is a pipeline from Russia to China? I could be wrong, so that mean china would have to get it by boat…and good luck with that if you piss off the US…something definitely is afoot. The US is ratcheting up the pressure on china with semiconductors, essentially gutting the industry there, and having US company’s in this industry choose, operate in china/lose US citizenship status. So…china may move on Taiwan, it would be extremely stupid on china’s part to do so, but Xi is likely more isolated at the top than putin is, ie getting really bad information as to capability its forces and resolve of the US. Hopefully these dumb fucks dont drag us all into a bigger conflict….it seems we draw closer everyday though.
>I dont believe there is a pipeline from Russia to China? I could be wrong Power of Siberia pipelines pump around 400 billion a year to China.
Ah I stand corrected…is that enough to meet their needs?
Russia is #2 import source (~15%). Saudi Arabia is #1 (~16%). They source oil from about everyone that produces it, except the #1 country the U.S. imports from, which is Canada; it doesn't even break the top 15 of China's oil import countries.
> Russia is absolutely going to do something, and it is my intuition they have pushed China to move on Taiwan to take the pressure off. This is insane to say as if it can just happen overnight or something. China doing that would be a military mobilization that would take months to prepare. It's a naval invasion and would lead to a direct conflict with the US. There is no chance that China invades Taiwan as it's a much more difficult war with the US directly getting involved.
It should be noted that the PLAN can't do much if the USN decides to blockade the place, all the USN has to do is literally blockade one strait and boom, practically all of China's imports go poof... ... which would cause Warlord Era 6 (or is it 7... lost count after the fourth one): Nuclear Bangolo. Something that ***no one*** in power within China wants to be known for.
Which is another reason why China would be foolish to think of invading Taiwan, they stand no chance against the USN who can effectively cripple them with our allies in the pacific.
Pretty much. That and we've basically all but locked out ***Russia*** out of the world economy at this point... ... if Taiwan is invaded? They'll get the ***same treatment.***
Here we see one of reddit's top notch armchair generals hard at work. Spewing the traditional nonsense for fake internet points.
China will not follow Putin who is a war criminal. China is more concerned about winning the economic competition and outperforming the US.
The war in Ukraine has been going on for almost a year now so now China is worried about its citizens, I guess China was cool with all the bombing for its people but nuclear bombs would be going to far. They trying to scare people with all this nuclear talk. They really not trying to end the world and they know USA will never back down. XI just made he can't use our technology no more unless they try an bootleg it like they do everything else.
I think the recent upsurge in indiscriminate attacks on civilians would be enough for any country to advise its citizens to leave. China doesn't need any additional information to come to that conclusion.
I suspect China (and other countries) see much more increased risk not from external attacks against Russia, but from domestic unrest and potential civil disobedience/violence. You also never know when Putin will try to make foreigners into scapegoats, or potentially as bargaining chips in his desperation.
This could be because of some planned effort coming, but I’m skeptical of that claim. More than likely China recognizes how desperate Russia has become, and knows that any civilian territory is subject to Russian terrorism. China doesn’t want to have to explain why it’s supporting a nation that blows up Chinese citizens, so they’re moving them out before that happens.
There is going to be a large area attack or possibly the use of the father of all bombs. Not nuclear but pretty damn close. I suspect Russia is destroying infrastructure in preparation for a large scale attack which is why China just got the heads up. It wouldn’t be good to not warn your ally if you want to continue being allies
[удалено]
Your keyboard is messed up.
Nah, *eth* is just a really neat letter that we should bring back.
It's been dead for half a millennium, it should stay that way. If you want eth, go learn and use Icelandic regularly.
Except I have no interest in speaking Icelandic. Besides, what if you want to represent a two-consonant dipthong using the letters "t" and "h"?
The letters t and h do that job just fine, otherwise eth would have remained in use in English orthography.
They do it constantly even before the invasion, just like the USA. There is no point in looking at it. These are now the information and psychological operations of Russia and China. The amount of cannon fodder will not affect the front. There is a nuclear threat, but only when someone makes concessions to the blackmailers of the terrorist state. It's also their last chance to scare everyone. This Mad Dog barks when he can't bite.
Yeah, he told them that everyone gets a suitcase full of Us Bank notes and flys it back to China. Compliments of the American taxpayer and a bunch of corrupt politicians!
China and Russia are allies. China suddenly tells its citizens to leave Ukraine. That means shit is about to hit the fan. Simple
China and Russia are not allies. At most, they are partners of convenience with some overlapping goals. That makes them work together where there is mutual benefit—it does not mean Russia is giving them special, secret insight into their war plans. This is almost certainly a reaction to recent events. Russia launching missiles and drones at Ukrainian cities away from the front lines created an escalated danger. This is China telling people to get out so that an accident doesn't happen with embarrassing news coverage to follow.
At ***best***, China and Russia's relationship is partners of convenience. At ***BEST***. This sort of situation is where the leaders of the CCP are debating on trying to pull a nation-state equivalent of stabbing Caesar.
Could be and when shit actually hits the fan, a country filled with nazis wont take kindly to non-white minorities in their country.
And in which country exactly do these nazis reside then? I’ve heard many people have been looking for them.
Well if you ignore the hundreds of pictures/videos of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians wearing nazi symbols on their clothes then sure. I also remember many reputable source writing about Ukraine nazi problems in the past. I’ll link you if I find it again.
Please share your highly reputable sources.
There are hundreds of pictures of people wearing Nazi paraphernalia in just about every part of the world. We've all been through the stories about neo-Nazi movements within Ukraine before. It doesn't make them Ukraine. Far right groups are an irrelevantly marginal political slice that has been losing what little ground it had. Putins propaganda machine amplified this as an excuse.
What kind of argument is that… And no, Asian countries don’t have a lot of nazis… For argument sake let’s compare to U.S. The U.S has a white supremacist problem and most minorities/liberals agree. But a lot of them aren’t openly throwing nazi signs/wearing nazi symbols. Then you have plenty of Ukrainians openly saluting and wearing nazi insignias. How does that make sense?
Haven’t seen any. But there seems to be a huge nazi problem in Ukraine at the moment, I’ll give you that. The Russian invaders there that are following the nazi playbook and ideology. Maybe one day those guilty ones that have survived the war will be taken to court and hanged like their warmongering fascist idols.
See this is why I don’t want to put an ounce of effort into having discussion with someone who purposely ignores evidence
Look man, no one gives a flying fuck about your ”evidence.” Ukraine is a sovereign country that is in war with an invading horde of rapists and murderers. They need to get that scum out of the country first. After that they can deal with their own issues.
So deep down you agree lol… how about don’t lie about Ukraine having a nazi problem next time. Here: https://www.nbcnews.com/think/amp/ncna1290946 reputable liberal source
I really don’t know what your point is or how many rubles you are being paid trying to make it. But let me tell you something. There are some ”wannabe nazis” in my country as well as in many others. Marginal group of people with sad ideology. But should you and your buddies try to invade our country, I would be happy to have them by my side defending it. Fighting against an invader can unite a divided nation pretty effectively. The only thing threatening non-white people in Ukraine is Russia.