UN resolution towards Peace-keeping mission for Ukraine in the pipeline?

[frigidweirdo]

How would you or I in that matter know as to what discussions were held on what level between China and Ukraine?

China does not support Russia, that's Western bull...propaganda - China has stayed and is neutral in this matter. China has not voted pro or contra in the UN - it has abstained
from casting a vote. It's therefore absolutely NEUTRAL.

Taking e.g. your mindset into account; China is supporting NATO since it did not vote in Russia's favor via opposing the UN resolution.

"But China’s deputy U.N. ambassador, Dai Bing, told the assembly Thursday: “We support Russia and Ukraine in moving towards each other. ... The international community should make joint efforts to facilitate peace talks.”

China unlike NATO and the EU however has openly and clearly addressed the linchpin in this Ukraine/Russia issue - NATO expansion eastwards. Unless NATO signals it's willingness to stop it's eastward expansion - what is China or anyone else supposed to talk to Russia about?

Because we have something called THE MEDIA.

China went to Russia and then the Chinese said "hey, we went to Russia."

Wang meets Putin, vows to advance partnership

www.chinadaily.com.cn

China went to France and said "hey, we went to France"

Wang says ready to reignite engine of China-France relations

Senior Chinese diplomat Wang Yi called for an early convening of a new round of China-France High-level Mechanism for Dialogue on People-to-People Exchanges.

www.chinadailyhk.com

They even had a phone call and China said "Hey, we spoke to the French"

China and France hold beneficial phone conversation

State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Monday that China would like to strengthen coordination with France to make contributions to safeguarding peace, stability and development.

global.chinadaily.com.cn

Literally we know because CHINA TELLS US.

China doesn't support Russia huh? So where, in the Chinese media, does China say "Russia is at war with the Ukraine"? The Russians don't want their little killing session to be called a war, no one else cares what it's called. Invading a country is war, no matter how you look at it. And yet, the Chinese have NEVER called it a war.

Also we know the Chinese hacked the Ukraine at the beginning of the war last year.

Mystery of alleged Chinese hack on eve of Ukraine invasion

A western intelligence official believes the aim was espionage - but questions remain.

www.bbc.com

"Mystery of alleged Chinese hack on eve of Ukraine invasion"

"The Times first reported that hackers, alleged to be based in China, began targeting Ukrainian websites on 23 February, the day before the invasion."

No, not taking in my mindset, you don't know my mindset, you've just decided that as I don't agree with what you've said that I must be the total opposite. What crap is that? It's the same crap of "you don't support Republicans, you must be a Democrat".

You don't know me. You don't know what I think. It took you like three posts to decide what I was, and you're WRONG.

China didn't oppose NATO because China needs western money. It's mostly kept to the sanctions the US implemented against Russia. Some Chinese firms have gone against the sanctions, but the Chinese govt hasn't. Why? Not because it supports the west, but because it's pragmatic enough to know that it can't survive right now without selling stuff to the west. The legitimacy of the government is, in part, that they run the country well, doing something unnecessary and impoverishing the country doesn't do that, so they didn't. They'll bide their time, get richer before doing anything.

 

[Kruska]

Literally we know because CHINA TELLS US.

China only tells publicly as what it want's the public to know, so does any other country.

China doesn't support Russia huh? So where, in the Chinese media, does China say "Russia is at war with the Ukraine"? The Russians don't want their little killing session to be called a war, no one else cares what it's called. Invading a country is war, no matter how you look at it. And yet, the Chinese have NEVER called it a war.

Russia and a couple dozen others aren't calling it a war - only NATO and those members in the UN that side with NATO
If Russia should define/refer to it as a war - I certainly hope it does not - we will all see the difference.

Also we know the Chinese hacked the Ukraine at the beginning of the war last year.

They hack into anything everywhere, not just Ukraine - just as all other countries do, that posses the means.

China didn't oppose NATO because China needs western money. It's mostly kept to the sanctions the US implemented against Russia. Some Chinese firms have gone against the sanctions, but the Chinese govt hasn't. Why? Not because it supports the west, but because it's pragmatic enough to know that it can't survive right now without selling stuff to the west. The legitimacy of the government is, in part, that they run the country well, doing something unnecessary and impoverishing the country doesn't do that, so they didn't. They'll bide their time, get richer before doing anything.

Doesn't change the fact that China is neutral - so far.

 

[frigidweirdo]

China only tells publicly as what it want's the public to know, so does any other country.

Russia and a couple dozen others aren't calling it a war - only NATO and those members in the UN that side with NATO
If Russia should define/refer to it as a war - I certainly hope it does not - we will all see the difference.

They hack into anything everywhere, not just Ukraine - just as all other countries do, that posses the means.

Doesn't change the fact that China is neutral - so far.

Your first sentence is bemusing. I'm not even sure why you wrote it.

Russia and... er... RUSSIAN ALLIES AND FRIENDS aren't calling it war. And they're not doing so because Russia SAID SO.

Why wouldn't you want it to be called a war? A war is a war no matter what you call it.

So, China hacked into the Ukraine infrastructure which just happened to help the Russians THE DAY BEFORE THE WAR and you think it's a COINCIDENCE... er...

China hasn't sent troops or military equipment, but it's as neutral as Poland is.... not very.

 

[Kruska]

China hasn't sent troops or military equipment, but it's as neutral as Poland is.... not very.

Nonsense

As for a possible meeting/negotiation between Ukraine and China - I estimate we will have to wait till April, unless the USA intervenes by whatever means.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nonsense

As for a possible meeting/negotiation between Ukraine and China - I estimate we will have to wait till April, unless the USA intervenes by whatever means.

Is it? Funny how that's all you can say about it though, rather than any explanation about why it might be nonsense. It's very easy to say "nonsense"

Why do you think Wang went to visit France, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Russia? Why these countries?

 

[Kruska]

Is it? Funny how that's all you can say about it though, rather than any explanation about why it might be nonsense. It's very easy to say "nonsense"

Why do you think Wang went to visit France, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Russia? Why these countries?

Sorry but you are asking for it, are you some retard or just a nerd giving his best to waste other peoples time?

Poland is the 3rd largest supplier of weapons, ammo, military training - you name it, to Ukraine. And you got the audacity to state that Poland is as neutral as China.
In view of this you even ask for an explanation of my comment "nonsense" towards such a statement.

You believe that Ukraine is the only topic in regards to China's foreign policy?
Since Trump started the US anti-China campaign - the US has been inciting more or less every country on the planet to join in on this anti-China stance.
Naturally China will counter such campaigns, e.g. in regards to speaking and visiting also those countries you mentioned above.
At the same time these countries are also essential towards supporting a peace imitative forwarded by China.

BTW; Wall Street Journal has released an article today - speculating on a visit of XI to Putin next week - that might result in an on following visit by Xi to Zelensky.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sorry but you are asking for it, are you some retard or just a nerd giving his best to waste other peoples time?

Poland is the 3rd largest supplier of weapons, ammo, military training - you name it, to Ukraine. And you got the audacity to state that Poland is as neutral as China.
In view of this you even ask for an explanation of my comment "nonsense" towards such a statement.

You believe that Ukraine is the only topic in regards to China's foreign policy?
Since Trump started the US anti-China campaign - the US has been inciting more or less every country on the planet to join in on this anti-China stance.
Naturally China will counter such campaigns, e.g. in regards to speaking and visiting also those countries you mentioned above.
At the same time these countries are also essential towards supporting a peace imitative forwarded by China.

BTW; Wall Street Journal has released an article today - speculating on a visit of XI to Putin next week - that might result in an on following visit by Xi to Zelensky.

I'm someone who comes for SERIOUS DISCUSSION.

"are you some retard or just a nerd giving his best to waste other peoples time?"

This comment is a waste of my time, it's attacking the poster and not talking about the issues.
You either come for serious discussion with me or you can fuck off and talk with the hundreds of people who come on here and just want shits and giggles.
You decide, but I do NOT tolerate childish crap like that.

Your choice. I have so many people on ignore, people who insult like that. I can add you pretty quickly and not give a damn.

 

[Silver Cat]

I see, you get caught with your pants down because you do not know history, then spin it in another direction entirely.

I do know history. And for most ordinary Americans situation was quite simple and clear: "We (English speaking Protestants) vs them (Spanish speaking Roman Catholics) ". "We are good, and they are bad". The Unided States supported English-speaking separatists and many volunteers gave their lives to protect people of their own kind.
Yes, for the Whigs situation was much more nuanced than that, but it's really difficult to stay against the will of the people. And political position "We should not defend our people in Mexico" was politically suicidal in the USA, as well as position "We should not defend our people in Ukraine" is politically suicidal in Russia. Say something like this, and your political career is ended.

 

[Mushroom]

I do know history. And for most ordinary Americans situation was quite simple and clear: "We (English speaking Protestants) vs them (Spanish speaking Roman Catholics) ". "We are good, and they are bad". The Unided States supported English-speaking separatists and many volunteers gave their lives to protect people of their own kind.

Oh good god, here you go again. Trying to force together two entirely different wars against two entirely different countries into a single conflict.

All you are doing is proving once again that you do not know history. Either that, or you are purposefully distorting it for your own reasons.

And your dragging in religion where it does not even apply is even more nonsensical.

The United States did not "support English-Speaking Separatists". Holy hell, are you even aware of what all was going on? As I said, it was a major revolution in Mexico, which saw over half of the nation split into two. Not unlike the US Civil War, where half of the nation broke away, not just Texas.

Holy hell, that was not even the first "Republic of Texas", During the Mexican War of Independence, as "New Spain" they fought against Spain much as the US had against the UK. And in that conflict, the northern part also formed a "Republic of Texas", but it was short lived as the Royalist army crushed the Republican Army of the North and the idea of a Texan Republic ended for 20 years. But that was a Mexican Army, and even the Mexicans in that region had already forged in themselves an independent streak, and did not want to be part of this new nation called "Mexico".

In fact, read the Texas Declaration of Independence, and look at who the founders were. They were not "White Protectants", a hell of a lot of them were survivors of that war two decades prior. Good "Catholic Mexicans", who never wanted to be part of Mexico, but an independent nation from the moment they broke away from Spain. And was primarily fought because the government of Mexico itself threw out their own Constitution and had slid into a dictatorship.

Patriots like Lorenzo de Zavala, a physician from Yucatan who was first imprisoned by Spain during the Mexican War of Independence. Who was a major part of early Mexican Government, until he saw his home state crushed by Santa Anna and moved to Texas because if he had remained he would have been arrested and executed (Santa Anna rarely imprisoned those who stood against him, he executed them).

Or Jose Ruiz, who was born in San Antonio when it was still New Spain. He was actually a soldier during the Mexican War of Independence, and was exiled as he had changed sides from Spain to Mexico. He continued to serve as a soldier of Mexico, until like da Zavala he saw what Santa Anna was doing and aligned himself with the Texas Independence cause. In fact, his son Francisco Ruiz was the alcalde of San Antonio at the time. San Antonio placed him on house arrest during the Battle of the Alamo because it was known he and his father favored independence. He was then forced after the battle was over to tour the battle and witness the atrocities done by the Mexican Army, as a warning to others to not try and break away from Mexico.

You know, what I find fascinating is that we are essentially talking about the closest equivalent of Adolph Hitler and NSDAP Germany in the 19th century, and you are actually screaming that those fighting against brutality and slaughter are the bad guys.

The only thing I can take away from that is that you really love brutal dictators, and will do anything in your power to defend them and make them out to be the heroes. As well as some kind of racism, as you are almost purposefully ignoring the fact that even Mexican Texas was wanting to be independent from Mexico, and a great many of the founders as well as those that fought for that independence were Mexican.

 

[Silver Cat]

Oh good god, here you go again. Trying to force together two entirely different wars against two entirely different countries into a single conflict.

All you are doing is proving once again that you do not know history. Either that, or you are purposefully distorting it for your own reasons.

And your dragging in religion where it does not even apply is even more nonsensical.

The United States did not "support English-Speaking Separatists". Holy hell, are you even aware of what all was going on? As I said, it was a major revolution in Mexico, which saw over half of the nation split into two. Not unlike the US Civil War, where half of the nation broke away, not just Texas.

Same way, there were two revolutions in Ukraine in 21th century - 'Orange Revolution' in 2004, and 'Revolution of Dignity' in 2014,and plenty of Revolutions and coups in 20th century.

Holy hell, that was not even the first "Republic of Texas", During the Mexican War of Independence, as "New Spain" they fought against Spain much as the US had against the UK. And in that conflict, the northern part also formed a "Republic of Texas", but it was short lived as the Royalist army crushed the Republican Army of the North and the idea of a Texan Republic ended for 20 years. But that was a Mexican Army, and even the Mexicans in that region had already forged in themselves an independent streak, and did not want to be part of this new nation called "Mexico".

Same way, during Russian Civil War there was the first Donetsko-Krivorogskaya Republic, and it were Commies who united Ukrainian People's Republic with DKR.

In fact, read the Texas Declaration of Independence, and look at who the founders were. They were not "White Protectants", a hell of a lot of them were survivors of that war two decades prior. Good "Catholic Mexicans", who never wanted to be part of Mexico, but an independent nation from the moment they broke away from Spain. And was primarily fought because the government of Mexico itself threw out their own Constitution and had slid into a dictatorship.

Same way, in People's Militia of Donbass were plenty of ethnic Ukrainians, Chechens, Buryats, Crimean Tatars, Serbs and even few Americans.

You know, what I find fascinating is that we are essentially talking about the closest equivalent of Adolph Hitler and NSDAP Germany in the 19th century, and you are actually screaming that those fighting against brutality and slaughter are the bad guys.

You see, Ukrainian regime is a bunch of Neo-Nazies, who open declarate their goal as "Derussification of Ukraine". Anyone who kills them - doing our Earth better. Do you want a party of "Deafricanisation and Delatinisation" here in the USA? I prefer to think good about people, that's why I really hope, that the only thing that Biden's clique defend in Ukraine - is their personal money, not Ukrainian "values", because otherwise we are going directly into American Civil War 2.0, and I, as many other Republicans will fight against racists and 'delatinisators'.

The only thing I can take away from that is that you really love brutal dictators, and will do anything in your power to defend them and make them out to be the heroes. As well as some kind of racism, as you are almost purposefully ignoring the fact that even Mexican Texas was wanting to be independent from Mexico, and a great many of the founders as well as those that fought for that independence were Mexican.

It's not about my racism. It's about perception of the situation by ordinary Yanks in XIX century, and for them Mexican War was a sort of another Indian war. Same way, Russian perception of the current European Security Crisis and NATO expansion, as that it's another European "Drung nach Osten", same that was in times of Hitler, Napoleon, Charles XII, Sigizmund II, Livonian and Teutonic Orders and many others.

 

[Mushroom]

It's about perception of the situation by ordinary Yanks in XIX century, and for them Mexican War was a sort of another Indian war.

Well, I am an "ordinary Yank", and I actually paid attention in history class and know the difference.

Sorry, but you are about the most bigoted and racist individual I have seen in here. You seem to think Americans are idiots, and that you can lie over and over and nobody call you out on your lies and attempts to distort history.

They are not the same, they will never be the same, and your attempts to combine them is always a fail. Don't like being called out for lying, then tell the truth. But you seem to be incapable of being honest, it only serves your claims if you can distort history into something it is not.

 

[Silver Cat]

Well, I am an "ordinary Yank", and I actually paid attention in history class and know the difference.

Are you an ordinary Yank from the first half of XIX century?

Sorry, but you are about the most bigoted and racist individual I have seen in here. You seem to think Americans are idiots, and that you can lie over and over and nobody call you out on your lies and attempts to distort history.

They are not the same, they will never be the same, and your attempts to combine them is always a fail. Don't like being called out for lying, then tell the truth. But you seem to be incapable of being honest, it only serves your claims if you can distort history into something it is not.

The situations are quite similar, because people are quite similar (somewhere deep inside). Reaction "we vs them" is one of the most conservative in the human kind.

You know:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.


Peoples of America had right to declare independence, people of Texas and California had, and people of Crymea and Donbass also have that God-given right.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You see, the problem is that the USA just don't have enough of nukes for any sort of 'overwhelming retaliation'. What is even more important - the USA don't have effective civil defense. So, if there will be choice between 'to leave Poland' and 'to commit suicide' - Biden will choose 'to leave Poland'.

This is gibberish. ONE US Navy ballistic missile submarine carries about TWO HUNDRED warheads. There are fourteen in service.

 

[Mushroom]

ONE US Navy ballistic missile submarine carries about TWO HUNDRED warheads.

That is the maximum, and the Navy is extremely tight lipped on how many nukes any ship or boat has. However, it is believed to be a mix of different numbers and yields of warheads and not all at the max configuration.

Just as our SSGN have 154 Trident missiles. But it is a mix of multiple types, they are certainly not all nukes.

 

[Silver Cat]

That is the maximum, and the Navy is extremely tight lipped on how many nukes any ship or boat has. However, it is believed to be a mix of different numbers and yields of warheads and not all at the max configuration.

Just as our SSGN have 154 Trident missiles. But it is a mix of multiple types, they are certainly not all nukes.

CCGNs don't have Trident missiles. They have cruise missiles Tomahawk. And there are no nuclear warheads for them anymore.

 

[Silver Cat]

This is gibberish. ONE US Navy ballistic missile submarine carries about TWO HUNDRED warheads. There are fourteen in service.

No. They (under the New Start regulations) carry twenty Tridents-II, two of them with W76-2 1kt warheads, and others with hardly more than 3 W76-1 90kt warheads. It means 54 90kt warheads and 2 1kt.
What is even more important - only eight of them (some times even lesser) are at sea at any given moment, and part of them assigned to detter China and India (and it may take hours or even days to reassign them). Only two of them, say, ready to attack Moscow, and there are more than 200 countermissiles in Moscow region's ABD and their EMERCOM and Rosguard can evacuate large cities in few days.
Sure, it's gambling, but they may decide to take their chances.

 

[Silver Cat]

 

[Mushroom]

Poland is the 3rd largest supplier of weapons, ammo, military training - you name it, to Ukraine. And you got the audacity to state that Poland is as neutral as China.

All of which is accepted Internationally of a country being "Neutral". Just as the US was providing arms to the UK and USSR before it got involved in WWII. Weapons and training do not stop a nation from being neutral.

By your very definition then, the US should have sent nothing to the USSR in 1941, as you seem to think that would have violated neutrality according to your very own argument. During the war the US sent 17.5 million tons of supplies to the Soviets, and even Stalin admitted that they might have lost the war without those supplies. Especially the logistical support, as that was where the Soviets were the weakest.

 

[Kruska]

All of which is accepted Internationally of a country being "Neutral". Just as the US was providing arms to the UK and USSR before it got involved in WWII. Weapons and training do not stop a nation from being neutral.

Well good to know that if China starts to send weapons, training and $$$ to Russia - that you will regard them as being neutral.

 

[Mushroom]

Well good to know that if China starts to send weapons, training and $$$ to Russia - that you will regard them as being neutral.

Actually, yes I would agree they were neutral. You see, unlike you I do not determine neutrality based on my personal beliefs.

That is an actual difference between you and I. To you, everything seems to be based purely on your own beliefs and nothing else.