Is China for peace, or Putin, or both?

[stevenkesslar]

That thread on whether Biden should run again is getting deeper into issues like China, Russia, and whether we are headed to World War III.   Since it's one year since the Ukraine war started, and readers in this politics forum tilt toward Asia, I thought it would be interesting to talk about China in particular.  And their role in the Ukraine war.

I'll start with @njf's quotation in that other thread of what Jimmy Carter said about war and peace:

Quote

"So, we have been almost constantly at war and China has been constantly at peace since 1980. That’s been a lot of difference because we have spent probably 4 trillion to 6 trillion dollars in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is about as much as our total budget for a year. In the meantime, China has spent all that money invested in their great and growing infrastructure. "

I agree.  Even many textbook conservatives like George Will now see Iraq as a huge blunder. As we frittered our global leadership away, China invested. 

That said, China invading Vietnam right before 1980 to back their Khmer Rouge allies wasn't exactly a peacenik thing to do.  Xi being bosom buddies with Vlad doesn't strike me as the most peace-oriented strategic relationship ever.

The quotes from this article about the Munich conference sum up two points of view nicely:

China talks ‘peace,’ woos Europe and trashes Biden in Munich

Quote

“We need to think calmly, especially our friends in Europe, about what efforts should be made to stop the warfare; what framework should there be to bring lasting peace to Europe; what role should Europe play to manifest its strategic autonomy,” said [China's foreign policy chief] Wang, who will continue his Europe tour with a stop in Moscow.

Quote

“China has not been able to condemn the invasion,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a group of reporters. Beijing’s peace plan, he added, “is quite vague.” Peace, the NATO chief emphasized, is only possible if Russia respects Ukraine’s sovereignty.

Call me an American, but it's transparent that both Xi and Vlad would like to foster division between Europe and the United States.   I agree that if China really wanted peace, they could have worked hard to stop Vlad from invading Ukraine in the first place.  One thing China does have going for it is the "see no evil" principle that we'll trade with you without being a hypocritical moral prude.  Like the US is.  As long as you leave us alone, too.  But it's hard to argue that Vlad is simply leaving Ukraine alone.  It does put China in a bind.

Asian nations in particular seem to be working very hard to navigate some type of middle ground between two economic and military superpowers.  One of my favorite thinkers on the subject is Kevin Rudd, former Australia PM and China scholar.  He would like his country to have the best of both worlds.  Which, he says, will be anything but easy.

Is China for peace, or Putin, or somehow both?  And how should the US manage the global competition?

[Marc in Calif]

6 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Call me an American, but it's transparent that both Xi and Vlad would like to foster division between Europe and the United States. 

I suggest that you add the words "even more" before "division" in this sentence.

Putin has already succeeded in fostering such divisions. But he'd like to foster much more of it. 🤬

[njf]

28 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

Is China for peace, or Putin, or somehow both?  And how should the US manage the global competition?

I just saw a rare and candid TV interview on German DW News of a former Chinese military strategist.  The guy is part of the Chinese delegation to MSC.  The interviewer is DW corespondent Richard Walker.  You should watch the whole interview and judge the reliability of the Chinese statements yourself.  The essence is that the Chinese have no ambition to challenge the US globally, and they are only interested in exerting influence in the western Pacific (i.e. along the Chinese coast). Their military is still far weaker than the US military to be a realistic competitor for the next 30 years. They disapprove of Putin's invasion of Ukraine but they have to keep a normal relationship with Russia because they share a long border and both are facing threats from the US.  Finally, he is worried about escalations in Ukraine war and the nuclear threat is real.  

Here is the link:

 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, njf said:

I just saw a rare and candid TV interview on German DW News of a former Chinese military strategist.  The guy is part of the Chinese delegation to MSC.  The interviewer is DW corespondent Richard Walker.  You should watch the whole interview and judge the reliability of the Chinese statements yourself.  The essence is that the Chinese have no ambition to challenge the US globally, and they are only interested in exerting influence in the western Pacific (i.e. along the Chinese coast). Their military is still far weaker than the US military to be a realistic competitor for the next 30 years. They disapprove of Putin's invasion of Ukraine but they have to keep a normal relationship with Russia because they share a long border and both are facing threats from the US.  Finally, he is worried about escalations in Ukraine war and the nuclear threat is real.  

Here is the link:

 

 

That was a really good interview with Zhou Bo.  Thanks for posting it.

There's a lot to unpack there.  Here's some general positive comments, speaking as a Democrat.  First, that's the language of diplomacy and conflict management.  My view is that Biden is the one explicitly saying we have to manage peaceful competition with China.  Highly MAGA Republicans are the ones who tend to portray "Joe Xiden" as a China puppet of sorts.  They seem to be the biggest saber rattlers.  Second, I feel confident that one reason Russia won't go nuclear in Ukraine is China would strongly oppose it, as Zhou says.  Third, it's interesting that he seemed to say this war is not going to end soon.  I think he said maybe next year.  I get the sense that, like me, he sees it as this intractable issue with two sides that are dug in.  On the face of it, having a major country saying, "Let's work the whole thing out" is better than saying, "Just nuke the assholes."

All that said, actions speak louder than words.  It was interesting that Zhou said right out of the gate that this is a violation of a nation's sovereignty.  But then he spends much of the interview trying to dilute that.  Well, but we have to try to get along with Russia.   (News flash:  so does Europe and the US, at least pre-invasion).  Well, what about NATO expansionism?  Well, what about the US being so adamant about Ukrainian sovereignty?   Well ......... yeah.  What about it?  I think China is in a bind.  They can't be for half-way sovereignty. 

So Europe will see who is actually sending weapons to Ukraine.  With the idea that it stops Vlad from invading Poland, or Estonia, or Germany.  While meanwhile China is mincing words about sovereignty.  I'm not a China expert.  But my sense is this has at least not helped China.  And it probably hurt China, at least through guilt by association.  It gives the US and Europe a good argument to say, "No.  We won't roll over when one country invades another to crush it.  Whether it's Ukraine, or Taiwan."  China will of course say Taiwan is China.  But I can tell you this, as an American who wildly opposed our invasion of Iraq.  I don't lose sleep at night thinking that the US - and most of the world - are on the side of the underdogs fighting for democracy and sovereignty.  Meanwhile, China looks acquiescent.  The idea that China wants to be "subtle" - to use Zhou's word - in the face of a bloodbath Putin started doesn't really pass my smell test.

It's clear that many countries - China, India, Mexico, to name three - don't particularly want to take sides.  That's fine, to me.  But China is in a different position than India or Mexico or (name a country in Africa).  Xi is much more closely allied with his "bosom" buddy Vlad.  Whatever Biden's flaws are, I would argue he's a model of how to take a stand and put together a coalition and exert America's will, compared to what Xi has said and done on behalf of China.  Again, "subtle" might be a good word to describe it.  You don't subtly negotiate for peace.  As I said in a different post, a realist like Kissinger has shifted to saying that Ukraine is now de facto aligned with NATO.  I think this was a chance for China to exert influence, and realism.  So far, it seems like they missed the chance.  Mostly they still seem like subtle apologists for Vlad to me.  My guess is that, like everyone else, Zi thought things would go better for Vlad than they actually did.

I think this makes a Chinese invasion of Taiwan more difficult.  At least to the extent that the US and NATO are saying we will fight back when a democratic nation is attacked.  Again, there's the "one China" policy.  It is completely understandable that right now, tensions are so high.  But that's partly because it's logical to think Xi might have seen Vlad's invasion of Ukraine, and the global reaction to it, as a trial run for what China might eventually do.  I'm not sure I buy Zhou's downplaying of China's military strength.  One way to read what he says is that by 2030 China will have the military superiority to take over Taiwan ("protect our sovereignty"), and the US can't do a damn thing about it.   Even in 2022 the analysis of the US military is that a naval battle over Taiwan could end badly for the US. The only good news, such as it is, is that even in the best case scenarios such a battle would go badly for the entire global economy.  COVID and the war in Ukraine reinforced that.  So nobody wants more war.

One thing I have read consistently from the people who think they are the best and the brightest on China is that Taiwan will eventually come to a head.  Meaning Xi speaks for China when he says reunification "must be fulfilled."  Kevin Rudd argues how we get around that is a problem for later in this decade.  Or maybe later in this century.  

So let me turn it around, and ask you a variation of the question the DW reporter asked Zhou.   Why doesn't China condemn the invasion, based on the principles of sovereignty Zhou stated?   And then put pressure on Putin to come up with a peace plan? 

Putin started the war.  And I do think it will only end when he wants it, or needs it, to end.

[stevenkesslar]

I'll add this as an afterthought on Zhou Bo/  Snd more generally on China's views on peace and poverty.

Zhou Bo: ‘The Asian century is already here’

Quote

And there is another reason, that is, China has been making great efforts to alleviate poverty. We find through experience that good roads lead to a better life. This is one of the conclusions we have drawn from our reforms in the last 40 years. 

I went hunting for other things Zhou has said, and that line jumped out at me.  In context, he's talking about roads at the border between China and India.  But, more generally, his point about the last 40 years of reform in China, and the dramatic reduction in poverty there, is spot on.  If Xi wants to make a case for his style of leadership, the idea that China wants more peace and less poverty is a very good place to start.

The number of people living in extreme poverty has dropped dramatically.  In 1990 there were 1.9 billion people living on less than $1.25 a day. By 2015 it was 836 million. Asia is the biggest reason why.  And within that, China blew the rest of the world away.  

To bring Jimmy Carter back in, for years he identified income inequality as one of the biggest threats to global stability.  Putin's war has added to inflation, income inequality, and food insecurity all over the planet.  One more good reason for China to pressure Vlad to wind things down.

There's always been this debate in the US between liberals and conservatives about whether we won the War On Poverty. In fact, poverty rates declined right before, during, and right after the 1960s' War on Poverty.  In large part due to all those anti-poverty programs like Medicare and Medicaid.  As well as broad societal efforts from corporations to foundations.  White poverty hit an all time low during Nixon's first term.  Because the economy was good, and he mostly embraced LBJ's social programs.

The funny thing to me is that no US politician, or corporation, wants to take credit for winning the War On Poverty in China.  But, in effect, global multinational capitalism, led by politicians in both US political parties, did just that.  China and Asia did all the heavy lifting, of course.  But there's no question that investment and trade with all the rich capitalist democracies in North and South America, Europe, and Asia helped.

The expanded child tax credits that reduced child poverty in the US by something like 30 % during COVID, and helped 61 million children overall, would have cost something like $100 billion to continue into 2022.  That's about double what the US spent in various forms on war in Ukraine in 2022.  On the face of it, most Americans would probably rather help 61 million kids in the US than have a war in Ukraine that has been absolutely horrific to its children.

So this could be a chance for China to put its mouth where its money is.  To its credit, Carter is right.  China has spent most of the least 50 years waging peace.  And they spent their money eradicating poverty.  And investing in a prospering middle class.  That is a basis on which to build a framework for peaceful global competition.  But that is not what Murderous Vlad is about. 

I don't think China trying to pursue peace in Ukraine from a "subtle" position of neutrality is going to win it friends and allies.  Or end the war.  A January 2023 of 28 countries all over the world says 70 % of people say "[my nation] must support sovereign countries when they are attacked by other nations."  That's not a subtle idea.

[TotallyOz]

China does things that is best for them economically. In Thailand, they have build bridges to the future by supplying them with trains, tracks, etc. Their goal is to get their goods out of China to the world. I don't see them doing something that would hinder that. However, a loss for Putin may make it harder for China in Taiwan. That is what they are most trying to figure into the equation. I appreciated that Biden visited the Ukraine and showed that he was resolute in his support.

I agree with @stevenkesslarthat Carter was right and now their plans need to pay off. I said the same thing to my Indian programmers many time. If they build the middle class, India could be one of the next super powers. But, India does not know how to do this. Both countries have enormous potential and lets face it, the US is going slowly down in importance. I would say China is next in line if they play things right.

[njf]

On 2/21/2023 at 3:31 AM, TotallyOz said:

I agree with @stevenkesslarthat Carter was right and now their plans need to pay off. I said the same thing to my Indian programmers many time. If they build the middle class, India could be one of the next super powers. But, India does not know how to do this. Both countries have enormous potential and lets face it, the US is going slowly down in importance. I would say China is next in line if they play things right.

A lot has happened in the last two days. Chinese side has released a few official documents: 1.  a document stating the "crimes" of the US; 2. a framework on international security.  Wang was in Moscow when Putin gave that speech to pull out the New Start Treaty, and met with him afterward.  He was there to make arrangement for Xi's visit to Moscow later this year. 

The document on the US misdeeds or "crimes" was described in Chinese as "檄文".  There is really no good translation for this word in English.  In Chinese history, it is customary to issue one to state the cause and justification before a war.  So this is a highly worrisome sign of the current state of the US-China relationship.

The another important question is what is the goal of Xi's Moscow visit.  It will only become clear after the visit.

Finally, an end to the war in Ukraine may be coming.  It seems that the Chinese are serious to be a mediator now.  It is in their interests to stop it, and they believe that it will be a major victory for them if they can bring an end to it in their competition with the US.  It has always been a curious thing that Ukrainians are so quite about Chinese fencing sitting on the war, whereas US and Europe countries are more outraged by it.  I can see why Ukrainians are relatively happy with the Chinese position.  For all the talks of limitless friendship between Russia and China, Chinese side will not accept the annexation of Crimea and other parts of eastern Ukraine.  There are probably also promises of financial supports to Ukrainians for rebuilding after the war.   It would be interesting to see if Xi will release his "peace plan" for Ukraine after Wang's Moscow visit as promised.   

[unicorn]

6 hours ago, njf said:

....Finally, an end to the war in Ukraine may be coming...

I'm not so optimistic. I don't see either side giving in. As long as they have our support, Ukraine will probably insist on having all of its territory returned, including Crimea, plus compensation for its injuries. Putin is too hard-headed to return those territories. I suspect our best hope is that Putin dies, one way or the other. 

[stevenkesslar]

7 hours ago, njf said:

Chinese side has released a few official documents: 1.  a document stating the "crimes" of the US; 2. a framework on international security. 

Which nicely sums up the problem for China.  If the idea is that Putin's invasion of Ukraine and his crimes against humanity, as outlined by Zelenskyy, are somehow "crimes" of the US, or perhaps NATO, that ain't gonna fly.  I'm not sure this leads to China winning a major victory.  More likely, China looks like a major hypocrite.   I'm not even sure that position is Chinese fence sitting.  It is mostly China siding with Russia's attack on a sovereign nation, and then blaming it on the US or NATO like Putin does.

7 hours ago, njf said:

I can see why Ukrainians are relatively happy with the Chinese position ...  It would be interesting to see if Xi will release his "peace plan" for Ukraine after Wang's Moscow visit as promised.   

I'm not sure I understand this.  First, what is the Chinese peace plan for Ukraine?  We don't know, I think.  So I'm not sure how Ukrainians could be for it or against it.  There is no poll I have seen to back it up.  But neither Putin nor Xi were just in Kyiv.  Biden was.  So my impression is the Ukrainian government, and most Ukrainians, are grateful to the US and NATO for the massive effort to arm them and provide humanitarian aid  to defend themselves from Russia's attack.  Poland and Germany and many others are providing shelter to millions of refugees.

China Squirms as Zelenskyy Outlines Russian ‘War Crimes’

That article is almost a year old.  But I think the diplomatic position it states is still the same.  By all accounts, China has censored the images of Ukrainian children being slaughtered, hospitals being bombed, and Russian torture chambers in occupied territories from the Chinese public.  It has not condemned Russian's "war crimes," to use the words stated repeatedly by Zelenskyy.  Ukraine is saying peace must involve something like war crimes tribunals.  So if China is instead pointing to the US as the party committing "crimes," it's not likely Zelenskyy or Ukraine will be "relatively happy" with that.  I think Ukraine would be "relatively happy" if China condemned Russia's attack on a sovereign nation, and the "war crimes" it states Russia has committed. 

China has made it incredibly clear that they won't do that.  In one poll I cited above, 70 % of citizens in 28 nations said  "[my nation] must support sovereign countries when they are attacked by other nations."   China is certainly not the only nation that does not want to take sides.  India is another big nation that wants trade and arms sales with Russia to continue.  But China is the only nation that promised a "friendship without limits" with Putin right before he attacked a sovereign nation.  The polls suggest this is not a position most people in the world agree with.  At least, not most people in the democratic world where these polls were taken.

I agree with you that China has a lot of leverage.  Ukraine would certainly welcome trade with China, and help rebuilding the country when the war ends. So if China is going to put forward a peace plan and engage in diplomacy, that's a good thing.  If China is saying Putin and his spokespeople should stop talking about nuclear war, that is a good thing.

In the broadest terms, I think China and the US, and Biden and XI, both want a stable world.  I don't think Putin does.  Putin has a tiny economy, and lots of weapons and soldiers and mercenaries to throw into the meat grinder.  So that is at the heart of the conflict.  China is going to have a very hard time walking this diplomatic tightrope about how it wants peace and stability in Ukraine.  Even though it is backing the guy who started the war, with whom it has a "friendship without limits."

 

 

[stevenkesslar]

Ex-Chinese military officer says world is in 'dangerous place' 

 

 

That's another DW interview with Retired Senior Colonel Zhou Bo that I think is even more interesting than the one @njf posted above.  It's from the DW show Conflict Zone.  And the host pushes back hard on some of what Zhou says. 

In terms of the fundamental disagreement, there is a particularly telling part around 18:00 in the interview where Zhou says that NATO expansion "caused Russia to panic and caused Russia to threaten to use nuclear weapons."   A bit earlier in the interview Zhou floated the idea that I'm guessing will be at the core of any Chinese peace plan.  NATO should pledge to stop expanding, in exchange for Putin's pledge to not use nuclear weapons.  The DW host immediately rejects the notion, calling it "nuclear blackmail."  I think it is clear that the US, NATO, the EU, and most importantly Ukraine, would agree with the idea that this is nuclear blackmail.  That if we allow threats of nuclear war by Putin to dictate what NATO does, we are inviting any and every nuclear power in the world to do the same.  

That interview highlights two issues where I think China on the one hand and the US and NATO and EU and Ukraine on the other are simply worlds apart.  And on both these issues, China and Russia basically appear to be in alignment.

1.  NATO expansion is the problem.  Zhou is walking a verbal and diplomatic tightrope.  He doesn't speak for the Chinese government.  But what he says does mostly reflect China's position, it seems.  On the one hand, he says invading a sovereign country is bad.  On the other hand, he says this was "caused" by the US and NATO ignoring repeated warnings, going back to Gorbachev, that the USSR or Russia did not like NATO expansion.  He does not mention that the citizens of these sovereign nations, like Poland, did choose to join NATO.  Now, Sweden and Finland have decided to join the club.  Ukraine wants to join NATO, too.  

On this one, China on the one hand and Ukraine on the other seem to be on a collision course.  This 40 minute session at the Munich conference including the PM of Poland, the foreign minister of France, and Mitch McConnell lays that out very clearly.  That whole session is worth listening to.  McConnell and Poland's PM lay out the hawkish position that is mostly winning in the EU and US.  And that is coming directly from Zelenskyy and Ukraine.  We should give Ukraine as many weapons as they want, as quickly as we can, so they can actually win the war and defeat Putin.  While they don't say it quite this bluntly, the core argument is that if we stare down Putin's nuclear blackmail, arm Ukraine, and stop Putin from taking Ukrainian territory, the world will be a safer place.  That's not even in the ballpark of what Zhou is saying.  The debate in this session is not whether Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO.  It's about how quickly we can get Ukraine into NATO.  So if China thinks the problem is NATO expansion, like Putin does, they are basically on the side of Russia.  And saying the exact opposite of what Ukraine is saying they want. 

I've said this before, but I will repeat it.  It is interesting that Kissinger, who many in Ukraine view as a Putin apologist, is now saying that one reasonable outcome of a peace agreement is that post-war Ukraine will join NATO.  I think Kissinger is mostly just acknowledging how this war precludes the idea that Ukrainian neutrality would last.  The widespread US/NATO/EU belief, expressed in that Munich conference, is that anything short of putting Ukraine in NATO would simply set Putin up to try again later.

2.  Democracy is losing.   Toward the end of that interview DW and Zhou get into it over Taiwan.  Zhou's positions is that whatever China is doing around Taiwan is defensive in nature.  And US leaders like Pelosi should not be showing up in Taiwan and rattling chains in China's internal affairs.  All of the is standard diplomacy coming from China.  What's interesting is that at 23:00 he makes a case that Western democracy is being rolled back since 2006, citing Freedom House.  The citation is correct.  But Freedom House of course says this rollback of democracy is a dangerous trend.  Zhou does not present it that way.  Zhou says that even people in the US don't believe in democracy anymore.  So, on the one hand, Zhou insists that China wants peaceful reunification with Taiwan.  On the other hand, he certainly creates the impression that China won't be pushing hard for democracy in either Taiwan, or Ukraine.

When he gets down to it, Zhou basically argues that "Chinese democracy" is massive poverty reduction and economic development.  To me, he is in effect stating that the legitimacy of the Chinese Community Party does rest on public support for economic development.  But I doubt most people in Western democracies - probably including Ukraine - would agree that a growing economy is the same thing as democracy.  People in the West want both. 

This movie is not new.  China has had a debate about "Mr. Democracy" and "Mr. Capitalism" for a very long time.  It is nowhere near being settled, I think.
 

[njf]

3 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

  China is going to have a very hard time walking this diplomatic tightrope about how it wants peace and stability in Ukraine.  Even though it is backing the guy who started the war, with whom it has a "friendship without limits."

I happen to disagree on this point.  The relationship between Russian and China is complicated, and the current strategic partnership is truly a response to US policy toward Russia and China.  In other words, it is an arranged marriage with the US as the matchmaker.  Here is a twitter thread that provided a very good analysis of the Chinese positions:

[njf]

3 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

Ex-Chinese military officer says world is in 'dangerous place' 

 

That's another DW interview with Retired Senior Colonel Zhou Bo that I think is even more interesting than the one @njf posted above.  It's from the DW show Conflict Zone.  And the host pushes back hard on some of what Zhou says. 

 

Unfortunately, we have moved a long way down the road now.  The hostility has increased significantly and Chines foreign ministry has criticized Biden by name, breaking with diplomatic protocol.  Essentially, they called Biden a double faced scoundrel and cannot be trusted as a partner.

The twitter thread by Arnaud Bertrand offered a pretty accurate analysis of the Chinese position and offered an alternative to Biden's approach. 

[unicorn]

It sounds as if a continuous stalemate is what China wants. They don't want Putin to win, nor the West and Ukraine. They're more than happy to sit back and profit from both sides. 😉

[stevenkesslar]

5 hours ago, njf said:

I happen to disagree on this point.  The relationship between Russian and China is complicated, and the current strategic partnership is truly a response to US policy toward Russia and China.  In other words, it is an arranged marriage with the US as the matchmaker.  Here is a twitter thread that provided a very good analysis of the Chinese positions:

That is a great thread.  And way more succinct than I could ever be. 😉

Henry Kissinger would agree with your "arranged marriage" concept.  Meaning he thinks the US is helping drive China into Putin's arms.  

But Bertrand seems right that it is hardly a warm embrace, or happy marriage, despite the rhetoric about "friendship without limits."  To me, this tweet of his is probably the single most important principle - or lack thereof.

Quote

From China's point of view, if it were to fight alongside Russia it'd undermine its own principle - that of sovereign integrity - with regards to Taiwan.

Beyond that, I would also say it undermines China's sought after image as a peacemaker.  China already took a huge global hit in public opinion due to perceived BS about COVID.  It doesn't need to take another hit by cheering on or participating in Vlad's war crimes.  And what Russia has done in Ukraine will be seen as war crimes by much of the world.

I would argue Bertrand is saying something similar to my point about how China "is going to have a very hard time walking this diplomatic tightrope about how it wants peace and stability in Ukraine.  Even though it is backing the guy who started the war..."   Here's how he says it:

Quote

First of all China has this - probably naive - hope that it can create a wedge within the West, with Europe not fully joining the US in its fight against China. And of course if China starts actively helping Russia, then any hope of this is gone.

I actually don't think it's clear that the US wants a "fight" with China.  I think Trump did, more than Biden.  The most strident anti-China rhetoric is coming from MAGA and the right wing. 

But however you want to characterize the US's complex positions on China, which is hardly a consensus, I think it is "naive" for China to think it can walk this tightrope with the EU on sovereignty and Russia's invasion with Europe.  China of all nations should know this.  Because they don't want Russia to do to China what it just did to Ukraine.  My own perception is that if the audience is specifically Europe -  not the US, not ASEAN, not Africa - China would be far better off publicly condemning the invasion, sympathizing with Europe's desire to defend itself from Russia, and saying we're in the same boat.  But China can't do that.  So, as Bertrand argues, I think Europe essentially ends up siding with the US view of China, whatever that is.  That Munich conference workshop I posted above gave a good summary of where the center seems to be at in both the US and Europe right now.  It is to push Putin back.  And send the message that this kind of aggression is not going to work.  Sorry, Vlad.

44 minutes ago, unicorn said:

It sounds as if a continuous stalemate is what China wants. They don't want Putin to win, nor the West and Ukraine. They're more than happy to sit back and profit from both sides. 😉

I think Betrand stated that point better:

Quote

As such, helping the US defeat Russia would be "dumb as dirt" as it'd basically pave the way for the US to focus a thereby undivided and very ill-intentioned attention on China.

That makes complete sense.  Again, you'd have to get into a lot of details about who in the US is "ill-intentioned," and why.  But Joe Biden is the one that the MAGA diehards like my BTC refer to as "Joe Xiden." 

If there is competition between the US and China, it is in part because China wants to compete, too.  (It's called capitalism, by the way.  😉 )  That's why China is not going to condemn Russia's invasion.  Xi was almost certainly hoping things would go better, and quicker, for Putin.  I don't blame him.  W. was hoping things would go better, and quicker, for the US in Iraq, too.  Again, China is the one who has mostly been waging peace, while the US and Russia have waged war.  I think Zhou also said it quite well in that interview @njf posted above.  Putin won't win, but he also can't lose.  Arguably, it is NOT in the interest of China, or the US, or the EU for Putin to lose.  At least if losing means we don't know what the fuck is happening to all those nuclear weapons.

 

[stevenkesslar]

United West, divided from the rest: Global public opinion one year into Russia’s war on Ukraine

by the European Council On Foreign Relations

War in Ukraine defining new world order, says thinktank

That's a really interesting new poll on "global" attitudes about the war in Ukraine one year in.  The first hyperlink is a summary by the European CFR, that did the poll.  I also included the second hyperlink, a Guardian article, since they have a bunch of easy to read graphs summarizing key polls findings.

I have my own spin on this, which is not quite the same as the headlines.  One thing both articles emphasize is that while the US and EU are circling the wagons and unifying, the rest of the world is not.  Although in this case the rest of the world really means other big countries, like China, India, and Turkey.  I actually view that as more good news than bad news.  If we now live in a world where big countries - like China or India or Turkey or all three - are not on board immediately when the US invades Iraq or when Russia invades Ukraine, that's probably a good thing.

Even the US and EU are NOT united around the most hardline military position.  Which is that Putin must be completely defeated, including being driven out of Crimea.  Even if it means lots more Ukrainians are killed or displaced.  34 % of Americans and 38 % of EU9 members agree with that hard line.  That's a polling error margin, but it does suggest to me that - because it is Europe being invaded and feeling threatened - the EU is actually a bit more hard line than the US.  Which is why I think China is naive if it thinks it can paint the US or NATO as the aggressor to Europeans.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world basically wants the children to stop fighting.  Which is arguably a good principle to build global security on, if we assume neither the US nor China will be the uncontested big guy (or bully) on the block anytime soon.  I'd argue Putin has weaponized hunger and heating oil.  Whether the average Turk or Indian would blame Putin like I do, nobody likes what this war is doing to food prices or energy costs.  Or their economy.  I just watched one of Bill Kristol's great interviews, this time with Francis Fukuyama.  Fukuyama argues that China's economy is slowing to a crawl.  For lots of reasons.  But this war doesn't help.  You don't become a military superpower based on being a stagnant or slow economy.

Neither the US nor the EU have anything close to a majority that agree that either:  1) Ukraine should end the war as soon as possible, even if it means land for peace or 2) Ukraine should fight until it regains all its territory, no matter how long it takes.  For that matter, the only country that has a majority for either one of those positions is India, where 54 % of people support ending the war ASAP, including land for peace.  The Chinese are split, just like the US and EU.  Although in different proportions.  

And that poll is NOT bad news for the US, or the West.  It's surprising that even in Russia, only 29 % of people say "Western dominance of the world needs to be pushed back."  in China, only 12 % do, the same percentage as India.  The way that question was posed as a choice probably does not fully reflect the depth or breadth of anti-US feeling.  But I take it to reflect the fact that people around the world see this is an attack BY RUSSIA on a sovereign country.  A poll I posted above says about 70 % of people in 28 countries all over the world support the idea that "my country" should oppose any such attack on a sovereign nation.  

To the extent that China wants the EU to see the US or NATO as the troublemaker, I think they will be greeted with skepticism, at best.  More likely, it will be viewed cynically by nations that see Russia as the warmonger and China as complicit.  But to the degree that a peace plan allows China to take the moral high ground with nations like India and Turkey, good for China.  I kind of like the idea that maybe in the future when anyone like Putin or W. starts a war, all these other economic heavyweights like India or Turkey will say, "Stop it now, kids.  You're fucking up our food supply, and energy costs.   Go to your rooms and figure out how to stop the fighting for a long time!"  If only it were that simple!

 

 

[njf]

6 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

United West, divided from the rest: Global public opinion one year into Russia’s war on Ukraine

by the European Council On Foreign Relations

That is a fascinating poll.  It seems to be driving the news coverage of the war lately. Here is the headline article in WP today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/02/22/global-south-russia-war-divided/

And here is an excellent opinion piece:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/02/22/ukraine-putin-nukes-zelensky/

The bottom line is that if total defeat of Putin is either impossible or even undesirable, the war should be bring to an end as soon as possible. 

[forky123]

Only read the 2nd article due to a pay wall. Putin can have peace any time he wants, he doesn’t want. He wants his land grab in Ukraine to succeed under his threat of nuclear war. The question that the article doesn’t answer is which bits of land shouldn’t the west give up under this threat? Hitler should show us that appeased dictators don’t stop grabbing land. 

[njf]

3 hours ago, forky123 said:

Only read the 2nd article due to a pay wall. Putin can have peace any time he wants, he doesn’t want. He wants his land grab in Ukraine to succeed under his threat of nuclear war. The question that the article doesn’t answer is which bits of land shouldn’t the west give up under this threat? Hitler should show us that appeased dictators don’t stop grabbing land. 

As a year of war in Ukraine made it perfectly clear, that Russia is not even capable of conquering its neighbor.  How could it pose a serious threat to Europe or US?  Do you really believe that a ceasefire in Ukraine will lead to a new war elsewhere nearby in Europe? 

Here are some excepts from the WP article about the global divide on the war in Ukraine:

"The conflict has exposed a deep global divide, and the limits of U.S. influence over a rapidly shifting world order. Evidence abounds that the effort to isolate Putin has failed, and not just among Russian allies that could be expected to back Moscow, such as China and Iran.

India announced last week that its trade with Russia has grown by 400 percent since the invasion. In just the past six weeks, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been welcomed in nine countries in Africa and the Middle East — including South Africa, whose foreign minister, Naledi Pandor, hailed their meeting as “wonderful” and called South Africa and Russia “friends.”

The Western countries “are hypocritical,” said Bhaskar Dutta, a clerk in Kolkata, India. “These people colonized the entire world. What Russia has done cannot be condoned, but at the same time, you cannot blame them wholly.”

U.S. officials point out that 141 of 193 countries at the United Nations voted to condemn Russia after the invasion and that 143 voted in October to censure the Kremlin’s announced annexation of parts of Ukraine. But only 33 countries have imposed sanctions on Russia, and a similar number are sending lethal aid to Ukraine. An Economist Intelligence Unit survey last year estimated that two-thirds of the world’s population lives in countries that have refrained from condemning Russia.

This is not a battle between freedom and dictatorship, as Biden often suggests, said William Gumede, who founded and heads the Johannesburg-based Democracy Works Foundation, which promotes democracy in Africa. He pointed to the refusal of South Africa, India and Brazil to join Biden’s global coalition.

That reluctance, he said, is the outgrowth of more than a decade of building resentment against the United States and its allies, which have increasingly lost interest in addressing the problems of the Global South, he said. The coronavirus pandemic, when Western countries locked down and locked out other countries, and President Donald Trump’s explicit disdain for Africa, further fueled the resentment."

 

[unicorn]

10 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

... One thing both articles emphasize is that while the US and EU are circling the wagons and unifying, the rest of the world is not.  Although in this case the rest of the world really means other big countries, like China, India, and Turkey...

I'm not sure that's factually correct. Most countries have condemned the attack. Only the countries in orange expressed the opinion that the attack was justified: the usual suspects of Syria, Cuba, Belarus, North Korea, Nicaragua, and Iran... Countries is dark gray expressed neutrality, light gray have remained silent. 

Countries in green condemned the invasion in the UN General Assembly resolution. Those in red voted against. Those in yellow abstained, and blue didn't vote:

[Moses]

4 minutes ago, unicorn said:

Countries in green condemned the invasion in the UN General Assembly resolution. Those in red voted against. Those in yellow abstained, and blue didn't vote:

Map of countries which supports sanctions against Russia (yellow):

[forky123]

1 hour ago, njf said:

The Western countries “are hypocritical,” said Bhaskar Dutta, a clerk in Kolkata, India. “These people colonized the entire world. What Russia has done cannot be condoned, but at the same time, you cannot blame them wholly.”

No, “these people” didn’t colonise the world. People who are no longer alive did that.

As for the rest, many people also aligned with Hitler or were neutral. Others took a stand against tyranny. 

As for Russia struggling to conquer it’s neighbour. That’s true, the Ukrainians have done a fantastic job in fighting the Russians which is why Putin has concentrated on destroying infrastructure and the terror bombing of civilians. Putin is a war criminal. 

[njf]

57 minutes ago, forky123 said:

No, “these people” didn’t colonise the world. People who are no longer alive did that.

As for the rest, many people also aligned with Hitler or were neutral. Others took a stand against tyranny. 

As for Russia struggling to conquer it’s neighbour. That’s true, the Ukrainians have done a fantastic job in fighting the Russians which is why Putin has concentrated on destroying infrastructure and the terror bombing of civilians. Putin is a war criminal. 

I heard similar argument that "these people didn't enslave the blacks, and people who are no longer alive did that". Is your rainbow flag just a camouflage?

[forky123]

Getting personal is a sign your arguments are weak. You know absolutely nothing about me other than from my posts on this board. Perhaps keep your arguments about facts rather than moving to abuse. 
 

People are responsible for their own actions and their own prejudices. They are not responsible for actions others took tens or hundreds of years before their birth. 

[Latbear4blk]

As someone from the Real South 😋, I feel the WaPo piece is straight on point. 

[unicorn]

3 hours ago, Moses said:

Map of countries which supports sanctions against Russia (yellow):

There's a difference between condemning a country's actions and applying sanctions. Obviously the latter is both hostile and costly to the country applying the sanctions. Turkey is obviously not a wealthy country, and it has a lot of trade with Russia. Only wealthy countries can afford a direct confrontation such as sanctions. Just because a country doesn't apply sanctions doesn't mean it's neutral in the matter.