• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'No limits' to cooperation with Russia, says China

Centrist

Banned
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2022
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
1,643
Location
Anti-Populism, Pro-NATO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
"China-Russia cooperation has no limits," says Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made his first visit to China since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine last month.

https://news.yahoo.com/no-limits-cooperation-russia-says-123129358.html



Lavrov also spoke about the negotiations with Ukraine:



I personally doubt China will offer any direct military assistance however you can bet on internet control techniques.

What is the Chinese leadership thinking? What are their next steps?
 
Last edited:
I think they've been put in a very difficult position politically, and it's clear that they are not supportive of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but that they want to retain them as a trading partner and political ally, so they're trying to walk down the middle.
 
"China-Russia cooperation has no limits," says Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made his first visit to China since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine last month.

https://news.yahoo.com/no-limits-cooperation-russia-says-123129358.html



Lavrov also spoke about the negotiations with Ukraine:



I personally doubt China will offer any direct military assistance however you can bet on internet control techniques.

What is the Chinese leadership thinking? What are their next steps?

It looks like Biden's puppet masters have another opportunity to ignore a red line they've laid out. You know, like Obama did so many times.
 
I think they've been put in a very difficult position politically, and it's clear that they are not supportive of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but that they want to retain them as a trading partner and political ally, so they're trying to walk down the middle.
I think they're interested in how this Ukraine thing plays out internationally because of the parallels with their Taiwan situation.
Oddly enough, some of the same people who say Russia has a claim in Ukraine also insist on Taiwan's sovereignty.
 
It looks like Biden's puppet masters have another opportunity to ignore a red line they've laid out. You know, like Obama did so many times.
It looks like you are completely unable to shake off your toxic partisan blinders, no matter what the topic.
 
"China-Russia cooperation has no limits," says Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made his first visit to China since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine last month.
https://news.yahoo.com/no-limits-cooperation-russia-says-123129358.html

Lavrov also spoke about the negotiations with Ukraine:

I personally doubt China will offer any direct military assistance however you can bet on internet control techniques.
What is the Chinese leadership thinking? What are their next steps?


That's what China says at the moment.
But, the words don't actually mean that much.

Let's see what China actually does.
 
It looks like Biden's puppet masters have another opportunity to ignore a red line they've laid out. You know, like Obama did so many times.
Why don't you mix in a few reasonable, non-partisan posts here and there to try and increase your reputation...to give at least a facade of credibility?
Puppet masters...just more CT nonsense.
 
Oh no, not cooperation! That's horrible. 😱
 
Well, rest assured we all do come together - and stick - to keep Trump out-of-office! (y)
Oh, I know. The ends justify the means...no matter how unethical, immoral or illegal. Right?
 
Oh, I know. The ends justify the means...no matter how unethical, immoral or illegal. Right?

T**** was an illegitimate president.

 
I think they've been put in a very difficult position politically, and it's clear that they are not supportive of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but that they want to retain them as a trading partner and political ally, so they're trying to walk down the middle.
It's more that they actually do support the invasion and giving the West a black eye per the actions of a close ally (as internal state propaganda and information control on the matter makes explicit), but they don't want to attract the enmity, and more importantly withering sanctions, of a unified West which is something they've been pretty explicit about, so they're pretending to vouch for peace and de-escalation.
 
It looks like Biden's puppet masters have another opportunity to ignore a red line they've laid out. You know, like Obama did so many times.
Explain, please !

Obama’s Red Line, Revisited​

The offhand remark spurred a massive success in Syria. Why does the foreign policy establishment consider it a failure?
By DEREK CHOLLET
July 19, 2016
"...By October 2013, without a bomb being dropped, the Bashar Assad regime had admitted having a massive chemical weapons program it had never before acknowledged, agreed to give it up and submitted to a multinational coalition that removed and destroyed the deadly trove. From my perspective at the Pentagon, this seemed like an incontrovertible, if inelegant, example of what academics call “coercive diplomacy,” using the threat of force to achieve an outcome military power itself could not even accomplish....
The civil war in Syria had dominated the news for more than two years, but few politicians had thought deeply about it, relieved that it was not their problem. None were happy to share the responsibility of being accountable for what America would or would not do about the violence. And, in fact, now that they did share the responsiblility, it became clear that they were as uncertain as the administration had been about the risks of using force—and fears of the possible consequences.

For two weeks, the administration made its case on Capitol Hill, but it soon became clear that most Republicans and Democrats in Congress were against authorizing action—leaving Obama the option of going forward anyway (which he said he would do) or backing down altogether. Then, an unexpected opportunity emerged: During a September 9 news conference in London, Secretary of State John Kerry was asked whether there was anything Assad could do to avoid an attack. Sure, Kerry said in exasperation, the Syrian leader could admit that he had chemical weapons (something he still refused to do) and give them all up peacefully, but “he isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done.” Like Obama’s original red line a year earlier, this offhand remark wasn’t intended to be a policy pronouncement. But soon after Kerry walked off the stage he received a call from his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, who was then meeting with a delegation of Syrian diplomats in Moscow and wanted to talk with the secretary of state about his “initiative.”

Washington and Moscow had deep disagreements over Syria. Russia continued to be one of Assad’s few international backers and, importantly, the Syrian military’s chief supplier. But even Moscow worried about Syria’s chemical weapons. And though earlier talks of U.S.-Russian collaboration to deal with Assad’s stockpile had never led anywhere, the credible threat of U.S. military force suddenly changed the calculation. Now, Moscow was ready to pressure Assad to comply with Kerry’s offhand demand. Maybe this reflected Russian concerns about the proliferation of chemical weapons; or perhaps this was driven by the Kremlin’s desire to keep an ally in power; or possibly Russian leaders were simply trying to stay relevant geopolitically. Whatever the reason, the next day, following a meeting with the Russians in Moscow, the Syrians publicly admitted for the first time that they had chemical arms and committed to signing the Chemical Weapons Convention, the international treaty banning such weapons. The Syrians were pledging to come clean—and not just to reveal what they had, but to get rid of their chemical weapons altogether.."
 
Last edited:
Another picture from the summit:

The Irrational Statement for the day goes to Mr. Lavrov:

"Russia and China to advance ‘fair world order’".

😅 fair.

FPF_g1UXoAAEmxW.jpg
 
"China-Russia cooperation has no limits," says Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin, as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made his first visit to China since Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine last month.

https://news.yahoo.com/no-limits-cooperation-russia-says-123129358.html



Lavrov also spoke about the negotiations with Ukraine:



I personally doubt China will offer any direct military assistance however you can bet on internet control techniques.

What is the Chinese leadership thinking? What are their next steps?

The Chinese leadership is thinking "What is the best thing for China?". Their next steps are going to be whatever they believe holds out the greatest chance of delivering the most benefit to China.

If the Chinese were to receive a "Yes." to the question "Will you do nothing except make diplomatic rumbles if we return the rebellious province that persists in acting like it is an independent country back into the fold PROVIDED that we cooperate fully in your sanctions against Russia over Ukraine?" from the US government, then the Chinese government would likely cooperate fully with the US efforts to isolate Russia AND would "take forceful steps to remove the usurpers who are purporting to be the government of an independent nation from the control of the government of the Chinese province of Taiwan" almost immediately (and most certainly before any announcement of that agreement had been made).

On the other hand, the Russians might offer China "Outer Manchuria" in return for support and, if the US didn't have any better counter inducement, the Chinese government just might accept it.

Mind you, it is always possible that the Chinese could make BOTH of those deals and then effectuate them before either Russia or the US could take any effective steps to quash them.
 
Oh, I know. The ends justify the means...no matter how unethical, immoral or illegal. Right?
Oh the irony, coming from a Trumpist.
Trump University- illegal
Trump Foundation- unethical
Stormy Daniels- immoral
 
Oh, I know. The ends justify the means...no matter how unethical, immoral or illegal. Right?
Hey, it's worked OK for the governments of the United States of America since 1900 (and every other major world power since Akkadian Sargon of Akkad was the King of the Universe), so why change a "winning" strategy.
 
China doesn’t do anything that it doesn’t believe will advance its own interests. Getting involved in a proxy war with NATO is of absolutely no benefit to them and if anything would not bode well for its belt and road initiative. But it’s also going to make it known that the United States does not dictate its foreign policy and if they don’t supply Russia it’s because they don’t want to.

And remember folks - all those little Ukranian flags people all over the world are buying and waving around are probably infused with the tears of Chinese laborers somewhere along the line. Why sell bombs to Russia?
 
Last edited:
It looks like Biden's puppet masters have another opportunity to ignore a red line they've laid out. You know, like Obama did so many times.

WTF are you drooling? What red line? Obama was imperfect but still a better president than any Republican kleptocrat could dream of being. How dare you support the one-term loser, traitor Trump and then shit on anyone else's president.

When Biden fellates Putin like Trump does, the word "puppet might not seem like more conservatard projection.
 
Via Euromaidan Press and CNN

---> not circulated by any Western European agencies though.

 
The Chinese leadership is thinking "What is the best thing for China?". Their next steps are going to be whatever they believe holds out the greatest chance of delivering the most benefit to China.

If the Chinese were to receive a "Yes." to the question "Will you do nothing except make diplomatic rumbles if we return the rebellious province that persists in acting like it is an independent country back into the fold PROVIDED that we cooperate fully in your sanctions against Russia over Ukraine?" from the US government, then the Chinese government would likely cooperate fully with the US efforts to isolate Russia AND would "take forceful steps to remove the usurpers who are purporting to be the government of an independent nation from the control of the government of the Chinese province of Taiwan" almost immediately (and most certainly before any announcement of that agreement had been made).

On the other hand, the Russians might offer China "Outer Manchuria" in return for support and, if the US didn't have any better counter inducement, the Chinese government just might accept it.

Mind you, it is always possible that the Chinese could make BOTH of those deals and then effectuate them before either Russia or the US could take any effective steps to quash them.

China trying to invade both Taiwan and Russia simultaneously would be laughably dumb.
 
Back
Top Bottom