China Won't Supply Russia With Military Equipment After U.S. Warnings

[Slartibartfast]

'Genocide' has become misused in the context of the Russian invasion. It's an emotionally charged word much beloved of propagandists. Putin is in the business of territorial acquisition and I think it's highly unlikely he's seeking to do away with the population of over 43 million Ukrainian nationals.

In this case I was referring to China and the Uighur population.

 

[humbolt]

China will do whatever it believes serves it's best interests, regardless of what they might say. Train loads of munitions and equipment could head to Russia, and we can't stop it. China will simply deny it and ratchet up tension further.

This penchant of announcing red lines is foolish. If we want to stick China in the eye, recognize Taiwan sovereignty. Bear in mind that those man made islands China built in the South China Sea - the one's they assured the world they would not militarize, are now fully militarized. Believe China at your own risk.

 

[yankintx]

That statement would not have been a lie if Trump the Terrorist had used a singular first-person pronoun instead of the plural. Putin is one of his personal friends beyond politics.

Well even Hitler had a friend, Speer.

 

[MTAtech]

China will be supplying Russian soldiers with rations though, because theyre starving in Ukraine.

Here is a video of what they will eat:

Yeah, but in an hour they'll be hungry again.

 

[Tigerace117]

The U.S. is China's #1 trading partner. Russia has a tiny economy. Thus, the U.S. is far more important to China than Russia.

The US also stands in the way of China achieving its geopolitical goals such as retaking Taiwan. Russia....does not.

 

[snakestretcher]

Well, his forces are being indiscriminate in killing civilians. I watched a Russian tank intentionally shell a residential high-rise.

So were the RAF during WW2 and the 'strategic' (read 'carpet' or 'saturation') bombing campaign. Nobody can claim innocence in wartime. 'Rolling Thunder' during the Vietnam war was also entirely indiscriminate-for almost four years.

 

[TomFitz]

If China waits a bit, Russia will be more desperate — better bargains

At best, Biden probably only indicated a additional surcharge to China's potential costs for helping Russia out now.

China will step in to help Russia eventually.
But it won't be to support Russia's military adventurism.
China will step in to help mop up the mess Putin leaves behind.

Yes, that’s correct.

The Chinese will almost certainly provide some sort of non military, and perhaps military aid.

It will never be anything like what the Russians want. And Russia tipped its very weak hand by asking in the first place. Not so long ago, the very idea of Russians begging the Chinese for help would have been unthinkable. It is an indication of how weak the Russian hand is.

Bejing knows that (Putin just told them, in case they missed it).

China will give Russia just enough aid to prolong the war and bleed Moscow dry.

Just as the US and NATO are aiding Ukraine towards the same goal.

Either way, Russia is on the wrong end of the war they started.

They my occupy Ukraine. But they’ll never conquer it. And Ukrainians will bleed Moscow dry, as surely as their geopolitical rivals will.

 

[TomFitz]

So were the RAF during WW2 and the 'strategic' (read 'carpet' or 'saturation') bombing campaign. Nobody can claim innocence in wartime. 'Rolling Thunder' during the Vietnam war was also entirely indiscriminate-for almost four years.

The only significant difference being that modern weapons are much more accurate.

 

[EnigmaO01]

So were the RAF during WW2 and the 'strategic' (read 'carpet' or 'saturation') bombing campaign. Nobody can claim innocence in wartime. 'Rolling Thunder' during the Vietnam war was also entirely indiscriminate-for almost four years.

The allies fired bombed Dresden Germany knowing it was all civilian. It was supposed to "demoralize" the Germans.
That said past horrific behavior doesn't justify the present.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, civilian cities, were essentially bombed to end the war with the Japanese.

 

[EnigmaO01]

The only significant difference being that modern weapons are much more accurate.

I would hope the U.S. and allies would no longer purposely target civilians. But I may just be naive.

 

[snakestretcher]

The allies fired bombed Dresden Germany know it was all civilian. It was supposed to "demoralize" the Germans. Sick.
That said the past horrific behavior doesn't justify the present.

Yes, Harris' bombing campaign failed to deliver what he had promised. Experience of the Blitz should have taught him that those under pressure don't always cave; on the contrary they become more resolutely defiant. The same happened with Nazi Germany.

 

[EnigmaO01]

'Genocide' has become misused in the context of the Russian invasion. It's an emotionally charged word much beloved of propagandists. Putin is in the business of territorial acquisition and I think it's highly unlikely he's seeking to do away with the population of over 43 million Ukrainian nationals.

Atrocities may be a better word?

 

[snakestretcher]

Atrocities may be a better word?

I'll go with that.

 

[TomFitz]

I would hope the U.S. and allies would no longer purposely target civilians. But I may just be naive.

If you were ever abroad during the early parts of our invastion of Iraq, you may have noticed how much different the press coverage was in Europe, compared to the US.

In the US, the press coverage was mainly indifferent or jingoistic. And stories about attacks on civilians were downplayed and frequently not reported at all.

No one outside the US believe any part of Bush’s case for war in Iraq. They knew it was an oil grab.

That was the war in which the US turned Abu Ghiab over to mercenaries and stood by while they tortured people.

It’s also the war where those same mercenaries shot up a whole village one day, and the US did everything it could to keep them from being prosecuted by Iraq.

The US is also the nation of Guantanamo.

We have slipped far from our pedestal of moral supremacy. We need ot remember that, and be aware of it.

 

[EnigmaO01]

If you were ever abroad during the early parts of our invastion of Iraq, you may have noticed how much different the press coverage was in Europe, compared to the US.

In the US, the press coverage was mainly indifferent or jingoistic. And stories about attacks on civilians were downplayed and frequently not reported at all.

No one outside the US believe any part of Bush’s case for war in Iraq. They knew it was an oil grab.

That was the war in which the US turned Abu Ghiab over to mercenaries and stood by while they tortured people.

It’s also the war where those same mercenaries shot up a whole village one day, and the US did everything it could to keep them from being prosecuted by Iraq.

The US is also the nation of Guantanamo.

We have slipped far from our pedestal of moral supremacy. We need ot remember that, and be aware of it.

I also remember Cheney during the invasion of Iraq showing a clip of a vehicle, during a press briefing, that was hit by a missile, and just as it hit, the occupants were running in all directions. The press thought it was hilarious and were openly laughing. Even as veteran I don't find killing the enemy funny. Necessary perhaps but not funny. I know usually troops are either side are just doing their duty.