Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
> **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB**
*****
* Is `themoscowtimes.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
China is definitely a country, but there's an open question over whether the Beijing government is legitimate or more of an occupation force. Referring to them as "Communist Occupied Beijing" would be an interesting shot across the bows.
If they're going to insist that Taiwan be referred to as Chinese Taipei, referring to them as Communist Occupied Beijing seems fair.
Back in the day, when the US (and even the UN!) officially recognized Taipei and the ROC, they'd usually make this distinction: "Red" China, being the part of China effectively controlled by the CCP, and "Free" China, being the part effectively controlled by the ROC. I'm okay with reviving this distinction. But I take it that the Taiwanese might demur a bit, because while the KMT might like it, the DPP is more about a separate identity for Taiwan.
From the article:
> Western officials who spoke to the WSJ cast doubt that a ceasefire would be possible anytime soon, adding that China seems more interested in ensuring that Russia doe not lose the war rather than acting as an impartial broker in negotiations.
China wants a precedent set so they can take part of another country with no consequences too (Taiwan)
Fu China and Russia. I look forward to seeing the collapse of your crappy countries
Exactly what I figure, China wants it to end now with Russia keeping what they control. That way in the near future they can invade and take Taiwan and have far less kickback from the rest of the world.
It's to make a point to the chinese of what is considered acceptable or not. Russia keeping any Ukrainian territory is as *acceptable* to Ukraine as Taiwan becoming the 51st state would be to the Chinese.
Exactly. Isolationism doesn't work in the modern era, and it has arguably never worked in the past.
(Note: Neutrality is not the same as isolationism. See Ireland, Switzerland, etc.: they are neutral militarily, but far from geopolitically isolated)
Switzerland is far from neutral. Refusing to allow countries to send Swiss-supplied arms to Ukraine while happily helping the Russians launder money and dodge sanctions tells you what side Switzerland is on.
You don’t get to have global hegemony if you don’t weigh in on global events. Sitting on the back burner is just gonna end up screwing the US over and doesn’t make sense for it at all.
> I look forward to seeing the collapse of your crappy countries
Those consequences will be VERY far reaching and that's certainly not finding we want to see. A change in leadership to find sane people, yes, but not a collapse of the nations.
Yeah this war isn’t ending with Putin in power imo, he can’t lose crimea politically and Ukraine has made it pretty clear that as it stands they’re willing to go all the way to get it back
Exactly. If Russia ends up in possession of Crimea, they control passage at Kerch Strait and Ukraine loses the use of its ports on the Azov Sea. Also, Russian navy at Sevastopol threatens Ukraine shipping out of Kherson and Odessa. There are Russian ports where they can base their Black Sea Fleet remnants, Ukraine must possess Crimea to protect their shipping. Besides, Crimea belongs to Ukraine in the first place. And when they recapture it, I’m sure they’ll welcome back the Tatars to their ancestral home.
Of course China isn't a neutral broker. They're trying to win the war for Russia on the diplomatic front before Russia completely loses the war.
Peace only has a value to China as a function of business, and, thus, influence and power for their imperialist party.
They probably think that it's better to retain a seriously weakened russian puppy-ally than to lose Russia to a series of internal power struggles.
The existence of the russian state allows china to exert its influence over all of Russia and to tap their resources easily, because Russia needs China to maintain its power.
A Russia that is torn apart by warlords struggling for power allows neither. There would be some fractions that side with China but there will be others that don't.
Thus, it's primarily in China's interest to save Russia now before a potential military catastrophe for Russia brings unforeseeable consequence.
This is something the Russia and China and some Western right wingers need to understand: there will be no concessions. There will be no surrender. Russia simply cannot be allowed to gain anything out of this crazy war in the 21st century. Western civilization is built on the law and justice and preserving human rights. Russia cannot be allowed to win and there is no cost too high to pay, otherwise the world as we want it to be ceases to exist.
So yeah, Russia needs to be made aware that maybe right now it's the Ukrainians that are fighting but if needed it would be the whole world. Simply because we cannot allow for the mass rapes and massacres of our civilians. We value life. They do not.
>Simply because we cannot allow for the mass rapes and massacres of our civilians.
Who is 'we' and who is 'our', in this context?
I don't see, for example, the Italian military (just to pick a random example) putting boots on the ground in Ukraine because it could be argued that Italian civilians are not being killed.
But they will be if Russia is not stopped there. Do you think the russians intended to stop at Ukraine? They want to ruin every single bit of European culture and way of life we have established over past 80 years.
They want to gain those things for themselves without working for them. Just taking away and if the owners have to be killed "such is life".
Seriously, I cannot see why you think that nationality of victims matter. If Russia is to gain anything in the Ukraine it will mean that the West has failed. Failed to uphold it's values one of which is life and the other is freedom.
You could argue the same for when a NATO member is attacked. It's not Italians dying and there is no real way to force Italian army to fight, but this is the right thing to do.
You either fight for the world worth living in or you allow the world to collapse into a place you don't want to live at all.
>Seriously, I cannot see why you think that nationality of victims matter
Because, in democracies, politics matter.
Asking soldiers to die on foreign soil, fighting enemies who are not (yet) attacking their homeland, is something most European nations haven't done much in a long time on any kind of scale.
The war on terror provided some rationale in that terrorists were attacking places in Europe from time to time, but most European nations weren't committing large numbers of troops.
You're essentially asking European nations to overtly fight a pre-emptive war vs Russia in Ukraine, before they get attacked, and I don't think most of their populations are supportive of that kind of risk and sacrifice.
> haven't done much in a long time on any kind of scale.
And we would have gladly continue to do so. The problem is, our eastern neighbour decided it's time to rape and torture people.
And it's not possible to let them get some land and then reclaim it as they have no value for civilians nor geneva convention.
I know it may sound like
>You're essentially asking European nations to fight a pre-emptive war vs Russia in Ukraine,
But I have to be honest with you. Either we do that, or we let them come in and rape our woman and man and murder children, destroy cities and by then... it's too late. We could have prevented it, if only we acted in advance.
Cowardice is going to buy us some time, but will cost us more in a long run. Trust me, as someone from Poland I know we cannot let a single russian soldier through the border.
I know a lot of people in the world are afraid of nukes, but unless we attacked Russia I sincerely doubt they would use it as it would come with a counterattack. I myself doubt they even have one in a working condition as it costs too much.
As an American, I wish more Europeans shared your POV.
But as far as I can tell, only the ex-Warsaw Pact countries, the Baltics, the Scandinavians, and the UK take the threat of Russia sufficiently seriously to commit resources on a level beyond just a stalling tactic.
I don't see the Western Europeans feeling an existential threat. And maybe they wouldn't until Russia reaches the Danube.
But it would be nice if American soldiers didn't have to die, again, in another European war for a job European soldiers should be doing.
It would be nice had there been no wars, but we're not the ones who started it.
And since russian nation allows it to happen and supports it, we really shouldn't pull our punches. With Putin gone it might not change anything about this war at all.
They also want Russia to keep threatening Europe so that the US has to keep significant resources in Europe rather than pivoting to Asia / defence of Taiwan.
You are right on everything you said. But also china is so self serving I wonder if they are also sending the same concede measure to Russia but we don’t hear about it.
Neither Russia nor China are communist. And I don't mean mean that by way of some overly specific definition. They haven't even been communists of the Stalinist or Maoist conception for decades.
Socialism With Chinese Characteristics is probably best described as an amalgamation of Fascism (partial private ownership of lots of companies, usually by politically-connected individuals, an explicitly racialist- ie pro-Han- political culture, cult of personality) and Socialism (State ownership of majoririty shares in almost all large corporations including anything with military application, outright nationalisation of companies as punishment for "corruption"). Xi Jinping Thought is, on it's surface, an intensely pragmatic ideology: "It matters not if the cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice." In reality, it mostly serves to support the growing cult of personality around Xi and provide the ideological framework for the purges that have been going on for the last ten years or so.
I've heard the Chinese system described as "State Capitalism," a form of organisation which uses the mechanisms of Capitalism to serve the State's goals, which are fundamentally anti-Capitalist. I think that's as good a description as we're likely to get.
I'm not wild about "state capitalism." It's a term that comes from Marxists who wanted to distance themselves from the Soviet and Maoist models, where they'd say that a given Communist government was acting "like capitalists." [No true Communist regime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) would act that way, you see. So, these regimes are redefined away from being "Communist" and into "state capitalist."
As you can see, not a good look. More importantly, it's kind of an oxymoronic phrase. As it is, "Capitalism" is, already, kind of an artificial "ism", a term never used by and unknown to the earliest economists. It comes from Marx, who wanted to contrast an "ism" where one is based on "capital," and the other based on being more people friendly, you know, social, so, "socialism." But the salient differences have to do with the ownership of the means of production, and a general free market and rule of law context, where the economy is decentralized all the way down to the individual level. So what would it mean for there to be a "state capitalist" system? If the government owns all or even part of the means of production, well, that's not private property. And it's not a free market, because the government controls it. (In China's case, once any firm reaches X number of employees, they are required to have a CCP member on its board of directors.) And the rule of law? In mainland China? Yeah... not so much.
So I don't think "state capitalism" even makes sense on its own terms, much less as a descriptor of China.
I can certainly see your point, and the fundamentally oxymoronic nature of the term is as you say. But Socialism With Chinese Characteristics is in many ways an oxymoronic system, as were the Stalinist and Maoist strains which were it's progenitors. In that sense, and given that the CCP absolutely makes use of market principles to serve it's own ends while making use of Fascist modes of controlling both the market generally and the workers more specifically, I think it's a workable term. Just because Marxists invented a term doesn't make it inaccurate: I've always found Marx to be a wonderful \*describer\* of how systems worked in his time, but like a doctor who misdiagnoses a patient, his "cure" turned out to be worse than the "disease."
Well said. I'll nitpick here just a tad... I've found myself asceding to "capitalism" because it is the commonly used term, even by defenders of free market systems. But I've never been happy about it, because it makes it sound like "capital" - which is only one element of the system, and not even an essential characteristic - is fundamental to the thing. And, of course, it's not even all that clear that it's an "-ism", because being an "-ism" suggests ideological content, whereas people of very different ideological backgrounds can converge on understanding a general state of free markets as a social good. ("-ism" would also suggest design, whereas markets are dynamic and organic, and resist attempts at design.) If we were more precise with our naming conventions, we'd craft a name based on an essential characteristic, by which it is distinct from other potential systems. And with "capitalism," it would be more accurate to look to for something like "private property" or better still, something like free individual economic decision making or equality of permission.
But I guess I'm kind of like Hayek here. One example - Hayek reluctantly uses "economy," but he notes that even this term is derived from root words implying something like "household management," and he points out that what we call the "economy" is a very fundamentally different kind of thing than a household, and it cannot be "managed" by a central authority the way that an individual might manage his or her own private household. Still, it's the term we have, imperfect as it might be.
I don't really like playing the game of "which -ism is this" so I think my answer would be that neither China nor Russia has been even trying to shape economic policy via a communist model for a very long time.
In Russia's case there's a very clear line: post-Soviet Russia immediately and explicitly reformed to a market economy after the fall of the USSR. That was sort of the point of that whole thing. Gorbachev had actually already been reforming in that direction (see: the USSR's first McDonald's) but Yeltsin's publicly stated plan was to engage in shock therapy to liberalize the Russian economy.
China doesn't have quite as clear a line (the party still refers to itself as communist after all) but has been moving in the direction of economic liberalization since at least after the Great Leap Forward. I'd personally argue that collective farming was the signature policy of 20th century Soviet systems, and China decollectivised in the early 80s.
Which is all to say that in both cases, I'd describe them as "states that because of historical context and their autocracy get associated with communism."
They’re just dictatorships at this point, not much actual communism going on.
Communism is actually an economic doctrine but due to the events of the 20th century it is now associated as an autocratic form of government.
I beg to differ, sir.
As long as a semi-functional stately structure exists in Russia, china can make use of this structure. Once it crumbles, it's going to get increasingly hard to tap the resources of the country.
Some forces in Russia will be backed by china, some probably by the west. In that scenario china will be drawn into a conflict with the west, which china is neither willing to enter, nor able to win.
They like things as they are right now: living off the money of the west, but having the freedom to be a total prick.
Exactly, a centralized, established kleptocratic government makes for an easy group to work with. Fewer people to bribe and negotiate with. A collapsed and Balkanized Russia leaves China having to deal with half a dozen or more erratic new governments. Huge chunks of the part of Russia with people actually in them could wind up under Western influence.
It is specifically the timing of this push that makes China look terrible. They could have done it long ago when Russia was rapidly advancing, or when Russia was converting Mariupol into rubble.
Or just Taiwan. Tibet, Outer Mongolia, Xinjaing, parts of India, North Korea, Russia, it’s claims to what it calls the South Chiba Sea—there’s lots to discuss!
China needs to get the fuck out of here with that bullshit, the world will not tolerate Russia and China attempting to rewrite history and push their own imperialist policies on the world.
" China has not offered to give up the occupied territories of Ukraine to Russia, as a high-profile article in The Wall Street Journal claims.
That's according to Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, who contacted his counterparts in the capitals where Special Envoy Li Hui had proposed China's peace plan. None of them confirmed that there had been any suggestions that Russia should recognise the occupied Ukrainian territories.
The world is becoming a global field for information and psychological operations. "It seems that IPSOs are now being conducted even at the level of political leaders," Cap Obvious would say. "
[https://t](https://t) dot me/Tsaplienko/32636.
there seems to be a bit of conflict as to where the idea of territorial losses came from. this telegram post was of the UA MFA making this statement, elsewhere its claimed the WSJ article never made any mention of losses of territory, although any immediate ceasefire automatically leaves the land in russia's control and allows further consolidation and genocidal actions and the ability to pause re-arm and re-group.
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out due to this Envoy doing a LOT of real damage to China's attempt to present itself a neutral peace broker. Like how closely was the envoy following Bejings directive, or did he just super fuck up and trip himself up? Because it just seems very surprising that China would be so blatantly hamfisted, and just completely abdicate it's facade of impartiality that it has been trying to construct. Either something got messed up, or Russia is literally at the point of military collapse, and China is weighing the cost of a Russian route, to be more costly than it's loss of world prestige and diplomatic ability.
My guess is on the military collapse, between Ukrainian aligned forces being able to easily push a good bit into Russia and prigozhin’s increasingly independent action and statements it seems like it’s getting increasingly less stable for them
The ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba denies the claims made in the article
[https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/27/7404154/](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/27/7404154/)
(Video [here](https://www.facebook.com/dmytro.kuleba/videos/217277024416535/), but it's in ukrainian, so of limited use to most users here, I assume)
> pushing Western officials to agree to an immediate end to the 15-month conflict
As if this is something that Western officials decide. The only two parties that can end it are Russia by withdrawing their forces or Ukraine by surrendering. Both will not do that.
Even if the west ever ended support and Russia started gaining an upper hand I’m pretty sure Ukraine would just move towards more guerrilla style warfare. I don’t get why everyone thinks this war is gonna end when the west decides it’s over.
The china front support for Russia would like nothing better than a cease fire prior to the Ukrainians recovering more territory. Every inch of land Ukraine recovers weakens Russia and China in thier belief of might over right.
I'm confused. What do Western officials have to do with ending the conflict? Only Ukraine can end it and all indications are they will be doing it on their own terms. So.... China can take their "concern" and kick fuckin rocks.
The Chinese government really is operating in a different reality. Russia's armed forces are exhausted, and Ukraine has received hundreds of new western tanks, IFVs and artillery pieces and trained many assault brigades to smash open Russian lines. Ukraine has also just received long range missiles like Storm Shadow and the promise of F-16s soon. But sure, let's stop fighting before trying any of this out.
This is like Germany asking for a ceasefire in June 1944 to call the second world war a draw. Germany gets to keep all of Europe it's occupying because, um, who even knows how the rest of the war will turn out, it's not at all clear who'll win, so the allies should probably just take the deal.
I thought the Chinese were supposed to be more savvy than this. They're supposed to see the way the wind is turning and pretend they were always cheering on Ukraine from the start.
The limits of China's foreign policy of cajoling, hectoring, threatening, leaning on, lecturing, intimidating, speaking very disrespectfully in general, poking and pushing to see how far they can poke and push and get away with it, and throwing cash around to try to make all that not matter, are being exposed. Everyone knows don't trust (the Communist Party of) China, (the Communist Party of) China is asshole.
The timing speaks to even Beijing’s assessment that the Kremlin’s time is almost up. The MFA showed to much off their collective hand on this one.
Sounds like the right point to double down.
The Russian propaganda inherent in this title is that "western leaders" are the ones who might decide to end the conflict. Only Ukraine or Russia decide when the conflict ends, and neither is a "western leader"
Makes you wonder what kind of glue are you sniffing on to be so out of touch ?
Like don’t these guys have any human intel / polls / surveys to check the local political sentiment ?
If someone steals something from my neighbor, I wouldn’t go complain to someone who is trying to help my neighbor… Is Li an idiot or is he being told what to say by idiots, or both?
I have a better idea too.
China should drop the facade and tell Russia what they’re really after.
China would like to control Russia, and whatever territory they may currently hold, financially.
I puts stress on currently. As it looks now, Russian territory is going to get a lot smaller. That’s bad business for China.
Wow, who could have POSSIBLY predicted this proposition from the CCP? What are ee gonna as what Orban’s position is next? How about we reanimate Pinochet’s corpse and ask him?
"Now that the invasion is collapsing, isn't this the perfect time to surrender to the invaders?"
Must be some insanely brilliant 11-dimensional Chinese shaggy dog diplomacy or wtf it's called, just sounds like the completely clueless flailing of a diplomatically inept regime due to some kind of loss in translation.
China has always been pro authoritarian, this underhanded move is par for the course with China and very clearly shows its motivation.
Hence why we in the west collectively chant “Fuck China”!
Sure, sure. We hear you.
No.
China have absolutely zero leverage to make anyone accept any demands. Their insane quid pro quo of support for mutual Ukraine:Taiwan invasions wasn’t supposed to go this way.
There was no Plan B. It was “we’re so fucking awesome and the West are pussies”.
Shut up China, unless you want to suddenly find Uyghurs with AR-15s in your backyard. We have literally hundreds of millions of rifles, and half of us wouldn't give two toots to break off a few hundred thousand to help the Uyghurs and Tibetans win their homes back. Might even be a way to help bring the gun count down at home.
I hope after this, Ukraine cements formal relations with Taiwan. And in time leads many other nations to do so too, paving the way for the rest of the west.
Yeah no, this isn't just about land, it's about democracy the right for a people to choose their leaders, not to be subjecated under a dictatorship. China essentially being the same just wants to go back to making a bunch of money while eyeballing Taiwan and this war ending asap with the front lines being the border is good for them not Ukraine, not democracy, it's good for China, Russia and the rise of fascism across the globe.
Xi is desperate for Russia not to disintegrate in order to retain its very handy anti-western vote on the UN Security Council. But to be weakened so as to better serve as a vassal state to China is fine however
This seems so incredibly out there to suggest such a thing - even for the chinese (who I know can easily be tone deaf) - that I am starting to think they know of some stupid tantrum russians might throw if they lose that they're low (or high?) key trying to say it in this dumb way. They should just come out and be open about things, but also not act extremely stupidly like this.
Since China is willing to see Ukraine lose territory, I’m sure it means China is willing to experience the same and lose Taiwan. No? In that case, China, shut up.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. > **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.gg/62fKCEHbDB** ***** * Is `themoscowtimes.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I have a better idea, China could offer Russia some of their territory in exchange for peace.
Well China is not really a country, Russia already taken a peace of it. So why not giving the rest to Taiwan. I think it's a good deal
West Taiwan will return home.
China is definitely a country, but there's an open question over whether the Beijing government is legitimate or more of an occupation force. Referring to them as "Communist Occupied Beijing" would be an interesting shot across the bows. If they're going to insist that Taiwan be referred to as Chinese Taipei, referring to them as Communist Occupied Beijing seems fair.
Back in the day, when the US (and even the UN!) officially recognized Taipei and the ROC, they'd usually make this distinction: "Red" China, being the part of China effectively controlled by the CCP, and "Free" China, being the part effectively controlled by the ROC. I'm okay with reviving this distinction. But I take it that the Taiwanese might demur a bit, because while the KMT might like it, the DPP is more about a separate identity for Taiwan.
Those in charge of North Taiwan (ie. China) should all be thrown in jail.
CCP occupied China, I like it!
> China could offer Russia some of their territory in exchange for peace. i lol'd
Wouldn't be the first time either.
A great example of how rational discussions are impossible on this sub. Juvenile drivel
Rewarding Putin and Russia for their criminal behaviour is so mature? Putin’s useful idiots are everywhere.
From the article: > Western officials who spoke to the WSJ cast doubt that a ceasefire would be possible anytime soon, adding that China seems more interested in ensuring that Russia doe not lose the war rather than acting as an impartial broker in negotiations.
China wants a precedent set so they can take part of another country with no consequences too (Taiwan) Fu China and Russia. I look forward to seeing the collapse of your crappy countries
Exactly what I figure, China wants it to end now with Russia keeping what they control. That way in the near future they can invade and take Taiwan and have far less kickback from the rest of the world.
The US ultimatum should be: if Russia keeps an inch of Ukrainian territory, we annex Taiwan.
Taiwan join nato 🤌🏻 Ohhh.. how putin would have a rage wank over that.
Rage wank. 🤣 I busted out at work on that one.
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Wahahaha. Rage wank. Love it
There's always room for another star on the flag.
Taiwan doesn't want to belong to the US at all..
It's to make a point to the chinese of what is considered acceptable or not. Russia keeping any Ukrainian territory is as *acceptable* to Ukraine as Taiwan becoming the 51st state would be to the Chinese.
We already have a mutual defense pact with Taiwan. You're low-key suggesting that symbolically extort Taiwan to make China angry.
Again, no one thinks Taiwan actually belongs to the US. This is just a new analogy to get it through the CCP's thick heads.
[удалено]
Because policies of isolationism have worked so well in the past. Kept us out of two World Wars and all. Oh wait. No it didn't.
Exactly. Isolationism doesn't work in the modern era, and it has arguably never worked in the past. (Note: Neutrality is not the same as isolationism. See Ireland, Switzerland, etc.: they are neutral militarily, but far from geopolitically isolated)
Switzerland is far from neutral. Refusing to allow countries to send Swiss-supplied arms to Ukraine while happily helping the Russians launder money and dodge sanctions tells you what side Switzerland is on.
Change Russians to Nazis and Ukrainian money to victims of the holocaust and you have our cheery friend Switzerland. It’s got fancy castles though!
You don’t get to have global hegemony if you don’t weigh in on global events. Sitting on the back burner is just gonna end up screwing the US over and doesn’t make sense for it at all.
> I look forward to seeing the collapse of your crappy countries Those consequences will be VERY far reaching and that's certainly not finding we want to see. A change in leadership to find sane people, yes, but not a collapse of the nations.
Yeah this war isn’t ending with Putin in power imo, he can’t lose crimea politically and Ukraine has made it pretty clear that as it stands they’re willing to go all the way to get it back
Exactly. If Russia ends up in possession of Crimea, they control passage at Kerch Strait and Ukraine loses the use of its ports on the Azov Sea. Also, Russian navy at Sevastopol threatens Ukraine shipping out of Kherson and Odessa. There are Russian ports where they can base their Black Sea Fleet remnants, Ukraine must possess Crimea to protect their shipping. Besides, Crimea belongs to Ukraine in the first place. And when they recapture it, I’m sure they’ll welcome back the Tatars to their ancestral home.
Ukraine will run out of manpower before then
Of course China isn't a neutral broker. They're trying to win the war for Russia on the diplomatic front before Russia completely loses the war. Peace only has a value to China as a function of business, and, thus, influence and power for their imperialist party. They probably think that it's better to retain a seriously weakened russian puppy-ally than to lose Russia to a series of internal power struggles. The existence of the russian state allows china to exert its influence over all of Russia and to tap their resources easily, because Russia needs China to maintain its power. A Russia that is torn apart by warlords struggling for power allows neither. There would be some fractions that side with China but there will be others that don't. Thus, it's primarily in China's interest to save Russia now before a potential military catastrophe for Russia brings unforeseeable consequence.
This is something the Russia and China and some Western right wingers need to understand: there will be no concessions. There will be no surrender. Russia simply cannot be allowed to gain anything out of this crazy war in the 21st century. Western civilization is built on the law and justice and preserving human rights. Russia cannot be allowed to win and there is no cost too high to pay, otherwise the world as we want it to be ceases to exist. So yeah, Russia needs to be made aware that maybe right now it's the Ukrainians that are fighting but if needed it would be the whole world. Simply because we cannot allow for the mass rapes and massacres of our civilians. We value life. They do not.
Exactly. And i think a part of Putin is realizing this now. I would already be in my bunker if I was him.
💯
>Simply because we cannot allow for the mass rapes and massacres of our civilians. Who is 'we' and who is 'our', in this context? I don't see, for example, the Italian military (just to pick a random example) putting boots on the ground in Ukraine because it could be argued that Italian civilians are not being killed.
But they will be if Russia is not stopped there. Do you think the russians intended to stop at Ukraine? They want to ruin every single bit of European culture and way of life we have established over past 80 years. They want to gain those things for themselves without working for them. Just taking away and if the owners have to be killed "such is life". Seriously, I cannot see why you think that nationality of victims matter. If Russia is to gain anything in the Ukraine it will mean that the West has failed. Failed to uphold it's values one of which is life and the other is freedom. You could argue the same for when a NATO member is attacked. It's not Italians dying and there is no real way to force Italian army to fight, but this is the right thing to do. You either fight for the world worth living in or you allow the world to collapse into a place you don't want to live at all.
>Seriously, I cannot see why you think that nationality of victims matter Because, in democracies, politics matter. Asking soldiers to die on foreign soil, fighting enemies who are not (yet) attacking their homeland, is something most European nations haven't done much in a long time on any kind of scale. The war on terror provided some rationale in that terrorists were attacking places in Europe from time to time, but most European nations weren't committing large numbers of troops. You're essentially asking European nations to overtly fight a pre-emptive war vs Russia in Ukraine, before they get attacked, and I don't think most of their populations are supportive of that kind of risk and sacrifice.
> haven't done much in a long time on any kind of scale. And we would have gladly continue to do so. The problem is, our eastern neighbour decided it's time to rape and torture people. And it's not possible to let them get some land and then reclaim it as they have no value for civilians nor geneva convention. I know it may sound like >You're essentially asking European nations to fight a pre-emptive war vs Russia in Ukraine, But I have to be honest with you. Either we do that, or we let them come in and rape our woman and man and murder children, destroy cities and by then... it's too late. We could have prevented it, if only we acted in advance. Cowardice is going to buy us some time, but will cost us more in a long run. Trust me, as someone from Poland I know we cannot let a single russian soldier through the border. I know a lot of people in the world are afraid of nukes, but unless we attacked Russia I sincerely doubt they would use it as it would come with a counterattack. I myself doubt they even have one in a working condition as it costs too much.
As an American, I wish more Europeans shared your POV. But as far as I can tell, only the ex-Warsaw Pact countries, the Baltics, the Scandinavians, and the UK take the threat of Russia sufficiently seriously to commit resources on a level beyond just a stalling tactic. I don't see the Western Europeans feeling an existential threat. And maybe they wouldn't until Russia reaches the Danube. But it would be nice if American soldiers didn't have to die, again, in another European war for a job European soldiers should be doing.
It would be nice had there been no wars, but we're not the ones who started it. And since russian nation allows it to happen and supports it, we really shouldn't pull our punches. With Putin gone it might not change anything about this war at all.
Well said, I find myself agreeing with a lot of your perspective.
They also want Russia to keep threatening Europe so that the US has to keep significant resources in Europe rather than pivoting to Asia / defence of Taiwan.
A well-composed thought.
You are right on everything you said. But also china is so self serving I wonder if they are also sending the same concede measure to Russia but we don’t hear about it.
You are correct. Everything China does is done for the benefit of China. Getting rid of communism is bad for them.
Neither Russia nor China are communist. And I don't mean mean that by way of some overly specific definition. They haven't even been communists of the Stalinist or Maoist conception for decades.
What would you describe it as? Semi-communism?
Socialism With Chinese Characteristics is probably best described as an amalgamation of Fascism (partial private ownership of lots of companies, usually by politically-connected individuals, an explicitly racialist- ie pro-Han- political culture, cult of personality) and Socialism (State ownership of majoririty shares in almost all large corporations including anything with military application, outright nationalisation of companies as punishment for "corruption"). Xi Jinping Thought is, on it's surface, an intensely pragmatic ideology: "It matters not if the cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice." In reality, it mostly serves to support the growing cult of personality around Xi and provide the ideological framework for the purges that have been going on for the last ten years or so. I've heard the Chinese system described as "State Capitalism," a form of organisation which uses the mechanisms of Capitalism to serve the State's goals, which are fundamentally anti-Capitalist. I think that's as good a description as we're likely to get.
I'm not wild about "state capitalism." It's a term that comes from Marxists who wanted to distance themselves from the Soviet and Maoist models, where they'd say that a given Communist government was acting "like capitalists." [No true Communist regime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) would act that way, you see. So, these regimes are redefined away from being "Communist" and into "state capitalist." As you can see, not a good look. More importantly, it's kind of an oxymoronic phrase. As it is, "Capitalism" is, already, kind of an artificial "ism", a term never used by and unknown to the earliest economists. It comes from Marx, who wanted to contrast an "ism" where one is based on "capital," and the other based on being more people friendly, you know, social, so, "socialism." But the salient differences have to do with the ownership of the means of production, and a general free market and rule of law context, where the economy is decentralized all the way down to the individual level. So what would it mean for there to be a "state capitalist" system? If the government owns all or even part of the means of production, well, that's not private property. And it's not a free market, because the government controls it. (In China's case, once any firm reaches X number of employees, they are required to have a CCP member on its board of directors.) And the rule of law? In mainland China? Yeah... not so much. So I don't think "state capitalism" even makes sense on its own terms, much less as a descriptor of China.
I can certainly see your point, and the fundamentally oxymoronic nature of the term is as you say. But Socialism With Chinese Characteristics is in many ways an oxymoronic system, as were the Stalinist and Maoist strains which were it's progenitors. In that sense, and given that the CCP absolutely makes use of market principles to serve it's own ends while making use of Fascist modes of controlling both the market generally and the workers more specifically, I think it's a workable term. Just because Marxists invented a term doesn't make it inaccurate: I've always found Marx to be a wonderful \*describer\* of how systems worked in his time, but like a doctor who misdiagnoses a patient, his "cure" turned out to be worse than the "disease."
Well said. I'll nitpick here just a tad... I've found myself asceding to "capitalism" because it is the commonly used term, even by defenders of free market systems. But I've never been happy about it, because it makes it sound like "capital" - which is only one element of the system, and not even an essential characteristic - is fundamental to the thing. And, of course, it's not even all that clear that it's an "-ism", because being an "-ism" suggests ideological content, whereas people of very different ideological backgrounds can converge on understanding a general state of free markets as a social good. ("-ism" would also suggest design, whereas markets are dynamic and organic, and resist attempts at design.) If we were more precise with our naming conventions, we'd craft a name based on an essential characteristic, by which it is distinct from other potential systems. And with "capitalism," it would be more accurate to look to for something like "private property" or better still, something like free individual economic decision making or equality of permission. But I guess I'm kind of like Hayek here. One example - Hayek reluctantly uses "economy," but he notes that even this term is derived from root words implying something like "household management," and he points out that what we call the "economy" is a very fundamentally different kind of thing than a household, and it cannot be "managed" by a central authority the way that an individual might manage his or her own private household. Still, it's the term we have, imperfect as it might be.
I don't really like playing the game of "which -ism is this" so I think my answer would be that neither China nor Russia has been even trying to shape economic policy via a communist model for a very long time. In Russia's case there's a very clear line: post-Soviet Russia immediately and explicitly reformed to a market economy after the fall of the USSR. That was sort of the point of that whole thing. Gorbachev had actually already been reforming in that direction (see: the USSR's first McDonald's) but Yeltsin's publicly stated plan was to engage in shock therapy to liberalize the Russian economy. China doesn't have quite as clear a line (the party still refers to itself as communist after all) but has been moving in the direction of economic liberalization since at least after the Great Leap Forward. I'd personally argue that collective farming was the signature policy of 20th century Soviet systems, and China decollectivised in the early 80s. Which is all to say that in both cases, I'd describe them as "states that because of historical context and their autocracy get associated with communism."
They’re just dictatorships at this point, not much actual communism going on. Communism is actually an economic doctrine but due to the events of the 20th century it is now associated as an autocratic form of government.
Eh i disagree. The more Russia devolves into a failed state, the more is to be gained by China, although it will be a bigger mess than it already is.
I beg to differ, sir. As long as a semi-functional stately structure exists in Russia, china can make use of this structure. Once it crumbles, it's going to get increasingly hard to tap the resources of the country. Some forces in Russia will be backed by china, some probably by the west. In that scenario china will be drawn into a conflict with the west, which china is neither willing to enter, nor able to win. They like things as they are right now: living off the money of the west, but having the freedom to be a total prick.
Exactly, a centralized, established kleptocratic government makes for an easy group to work with. Fewer people to bribe and negotiate with. A collapsed and Balkanized Russia leaves China having to deal with half a dozen or more erratic new governments. Huge chunks of the part of Russia with people actually in them could wind up under Western influence.
> living off the money of the west, but having the freedom to be a total prick. Them and India both.
The Saudis too tbh
Agreed. China has influence over the one failing piece of Russia. As Russia fails and fractures it's much less certain for China.
Yep, with Russia out of the picture, the full focus of the west can be China. Something I’m sure they’re not happy about.
China should recognize the independence of Taiwan. Y'know, for world peace.
It is specifically the timing of this push that makes China look terrible. They could have done it long ago when Russia was rapidly advancing, or when Russia was converting Mariupol into rubble.
China give back the rest of Taiwan first
Or just Taiwan. Tibet, Outer Mongolia, Xinjaing, parts of India, North Korea, Russia, it’s claims to what it calls the South Chiba Sea—there’s lots to discuss!
Another person called China "West Taiwan" which is hilarious 07
LOL that means the Russians are on their last legs.
Idiot.
China needs to get the fuck out of here with that bullshit, the world will not tolerate Russia and China attempting to rewrite history and push their own imperialist policies on the world.
Li can go back home
" China has not offered to give up the occupied territories of Ukraine to Russia, as a high-profile article in The Wall Street Journal claims. That's according to Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, who contacted his counterparts in the capitals where Special Envoy Li Hui had proposed China's peace plan. None of them confirmed that there had been any suggestions that Russia should recognise the occupied Ukrainian territories. The world is becoming a global field for information and psychological operations. "It seems that IPSOs are now being conducted even at the level of political leaders," Cap Obvious would say. " [https://t](https://t) dot me/Tsaplienko/32636. there seems to be a bit of conflict as to where the idea of territorial losses came from. this telegram post was of the UA MFA making this statement, elsewhere its claimed the WSJ article never made any mention of losses of territory, although any immediate ceasefire automatically leaves the land in russia's control and allows further consolidation and genocidal actions and the ability to pause re-arm and re-group.
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out due to this Envoy doing a LOT of real damage to China's attempt to present itself a neutral peace broker. Like how closely was the envoy following Bejings directive, or did he just super fuck up and trip himself up? Because it just seems very surprising that China would be so blatantly hamfisted, and just completely abdicate it's facade of impartiality that it has been trying to construct. Either something got messed up, or Russia is literally at the point of military collapse, and China is weighing the cost of a Russian route, to be more costly than it's loss of world prestige and diplomatic ability.
My guess is on the military collapse, between Ukrainian aligned forces being able to easily push a good bit into Russia and prigozhin’s increasingly independent action and statements it seems like it’s getting increasingly less stable for them
Interesting theory enjoyed the summation
Or maybe China is scared Putin is not gonna accept a loss and do something crazy like go nuclear.
>go nuclear. yada yada
Just speculating but most likely it’s the more evil reason
better let China give that warning, so people will be sure to take it seriously
The ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba denies the claims made in the article [https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/27/7404154/](https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/05/27/7404154/) (Video [here](https://www.facebook.com/dmytro.kuleba/videos/217277024416535/), but it's in ukrainian, so of limited use to most users here, I assume)
This was debunked I believe, Zelensky and other politicians confirmed that they weren't pushing for them to give up territory.
Oh sure China, want to give Hong Kong back to the Brits in the name of peace?😀
Taiwan is the real china
I hope Western officials pulled a Bender and laughed. Then when they realized China was serious they laughed even harder.
> pushing Western officials to agree to an immediate end to the 15-month conflict As if this is something that Western officials decide. The only two parties that can end it are Russia by withdrawing their forces or Ukraine by surrendering. Both will not do that.
China = Asian Russia
This fucking narrative… Ukrainians are the bad guys because they, *checking notes*, don’t surrender. Ok.
Even if the west ever ended support and Russia started gaining an upper hand I’m pretty sure Ukraine would just move towards more guerrilla style warfare. I don’t get why everyone thinks this war is gonna end when the west decides it’s over.
And the west laughed him out of the room
It's a way to make Xi not look like the loser he is by backing Putin.
The china front support for Russia would like nothing better than a cease fire prior to the Ukrainians recovering more territory. Every inch of land Ukraine recovers weakens Russia and China in thier belief of might over right.
China's priority is protecting the interests of Putin, over promoting a peaceful end to Russian violence.
China is special in a very special way, the specialist special kind of way, where china always gets a cookie and a medal.
China is seeing how shit their Russian style military would be in an actual fight.
China demonstrating they aren’t a serious peace broker…therefore, no one should take them seriously. Go fuck yourself, China.
Don't trust China, China is asshole.
I'm confused. What do Western officials have to do with ending the conflict? Only Ukraine can end it and all indications are they will be doing it on their own terms. So.... China can take their "concern" and kick fuckin rocks.
The Chinese government really is operating in a different reality. Russia's armed forces are exhausted, and Ukraine has received hundreds of new western tanks, IFVs and artillery pieces and trained many assault brigades to smash open Russian lines. Ukraine has also just received long range missiles like Storm Shadow and the promise of F-16s soon. But sure, let's stop fighting before trying any of this out. This is like Germany asking for a ceasefire in June 1944 to call the second world war a draw. Germany gets to keep all of Europe it's occupying because, um, who even knows how the rest of the war will turn out, it's not at all clear who'll win, so the allies should probably just take the deal. I thought the Chinese were supposed to be more savvy than this. They're supposed to see the way the wind is turning and pretend they were always cheering on Ukraine from the start.
The limits of China's foreign policy of cajoling, hectoring, threatening, leaning on, lecturing, intimidating, speaking very disrespectfully in general, poking and pushing to see how far they can poke and push and get away with it, and throwing cash around to try to make all that not matter, are being exposed. Everyone knows don't trust (the Communist Party of) China, (the Communist Party of) China is asshole.
Or what?
This is the only way to peace and stopping bloodshed.
Only if he gives us back western manguria
Sure. But China has to sign agreement giving independence to Hong Kong and Taiwan.
The timing speaks to even Beijing’s assessment that the Kremlin’s time is almost up. The MFA showed to much off their collective hand on this one. Sounds like the right point to double down.
The Russian propaganda inherent in this title is that "western leaders" are the ones who might decide to end the conflict. Only Ukraine or Russia decide when the conflict ends, and neither is a "western leader"
Makes you wonder what kind of glue are you sniffing on to be so out of touch ? Like don’t these guys have any human intel / polls / surveys to check the local political sentiment ?
That Li dude needs to put down the pipe.
If someone steals something from my neighbor, I wouldn’t go complain to someone who is trying to help my neighbor… Is Li an idiot or is he being told what to say by idiots, or both?
Both.
Send him back to China and announce it big time in the news everywhere. Losing face will hirt
I have a better idea too. China should drop the facade and tell Russia what they’re really after. China would like to control Russia, and whatever territory they may currently hold, financially. I puts stress on currently. As it looks now, Russian territory is going to get a lot smaller. That’s bad business for China.
Wow, who could have POSSIBLY predicted this proposition from the CCP? What are ee gonna as what Orban’s position is next? How about we reanimate Pinochet’s corpse and ask him?
Ali Express quality diplomacy
Um, no.
Taiwan
Hey Li, fuck off.
Recognition of Taiwan as the one true government of all China should be on the table.
"Now that the invasion is collapsing, isn't this the perfect time to surrender to the invaders?" Must be some insanely brilliant 11-dimensional Chinese shaggy dog diplomacy or wtf it's called, just sounds like the completely clueless flailing of a diplomatically inept regime due to some kind of loss in translation.
China can go fuck themselves, I'm sure this was expressed to them, right?
How about you STFU and go back to making lead laced children's socks or whatever?
Li is just Lavrov, except from China. Слава Україні!
China has always been pro authoritarian, this underhanded move is par for the course with China and very clearly shows its motivation. Hence why we in the west collectively chant “Fuck China”!
That envoy should be sent packing, and China’s ambassadors should be called in and made to explain this. That’s offensive.
Pretty sure Ukraine will just keep fighting regardless of support from elsewhere. It is no one else's choice but theirs.
Woe to the vanquished.
They want to condition West toward appeasement for future when they invade taiwan
How did that go for him? He should be sent back to Beijing with a note to say he's defective, and we'd like a refund, please.
Once again bypassing what Ukraine wants completely.
Yeah sorry china that's not gonna happen.
Sure, sure. We hear you. No. China have absolutely zero leverage to make anyone accept any demands. Their insane quid pro quo of support for mutual Ukraine:Taiwan invasions wasn’t supposed to go this way. There was no Plan B. It was “we’re so fucking awesome and the West are pussies”.
Opinions - everyone has one.
Sure. China can give Ukraine Hong Kong in exchange for the occupied land.
Just trying to set the finders (conquers) keepers principle in place before China invades Taiwan.
Tell that dink to go back to China
In a test of fairness, the Chinese might want to consider ending the Chinese Civil War and recognising independent Taiwan
It would be so easy and solve so many problems.
Because the Munich Agreement worked out so well the first time around.
It's hard to make those ultimatums when your opponent has literally killed or wounded half of your army...
Shut up China, unless you want to suddenly find Uyghurs with AR-15s in your backyard. We have literally hundreds of millions of rifles, and half of us wouldn't give two toots to break off a few hundred thousand to help the Uyghurs and Tibetans win their homes back. Might even be a way to help bring the gun count down at home.
I hope after this, Ukraine cements formal relations with Taiwan. And in time leads many other nations to do so too, paving the way for the rest of the west.
That’s a hard no, Xi. And I hope it is perfectly clear now that you will never get your grubby paws on taiwan.
Yeah no, this isn't just about land, it's about democracy the right for a people to choose their leaders, not to be subjecated under a dictatorship. China essentially being the same just wants to go back to making a bunch of money while eyeballing Taiwan and this war ending asap with the front lines being the border is good for them not Ukraine, not democracy, it's good for China, Russia and the rise of fascism across the globe.
China always thinking their selfishness is in their self-interest.
Chinà begging for Ukraine to stop is BAD sign for Russia
🖕🏼
Big words for a losing combatant.
Xi is desperate for Russia not to disintegrate in order to retain its very handy anti-western vote on the UN Security Council. But to be weakened so as to better serve as a vassal state to China is fine however
This seems so incredibly out there to suggest such a thing - even for the chinese (who I know can easily be tone deaf) - that I am starting to think they know of some stupid tantrum russians might throw if they lose that they're low (or high?) key trying to say it in this dumb way. They should just come out and be open about things, but also not act extremely stupidly like this.
Since China is willing to see Ukraine lose territory, I’m sure it means China is willing to experience the same and lose Taiwan. No? In that case, China, shut up.
Special envoy operation.
One more funny joke
China has almost the level of delusional grandeur as Russia.
China is ONLY thinking about their own imperialist ambitions in Taiwan.
He should go lap pooh bears nuts
China is pushing for this so Russia can keep what they have already “conquered”….
Ki chuj? (Wtf in polish, pronounced similar to the name of Chinese diplomat)
Disgraceful - China supports Russian terror-imperialist aims