Is China for peace, or Putin, or both?

[njf]

46 minutes ago, forky123 said:

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.

There is nothing personal here.  Just simply point out the fact the type of argument you made is also used by conservatives against reparations:

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/540812-slavery-reparations-are-a-divisive-waste-of-time/

I will stop here to avoid further derailing the discussion on Ukraine war.

[njf]

14 minutes ago, unicorn said:

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. 

You should go through the poll:

Which best reflects your view on what Russia is to your country?

In per cent

 

An

ally – that shares our interests and values

 

A

necessary partner – with which we must strategically cooperate

 

A

rival – with which we need to compete

 

An

adversary – with which we are in conflict

 

Don't

know
 

 

United States

5

9

16

16

55

EU9

 

12

20

12

54

Great Britain

 

7

16

12

65

 

India

51

29

 

15

 

China

35

44

 

16

 

Turkiye

14

55

5

18

8

Source: Datapraxis and YouGov (DK, FR, DE, GB, IT, PL, PT, RO, ES), Datapraxis and Norstat (EE), Gallup International Association (US, CN, TR, RU, IN), December 2022/January 2023.

 

 

ECFR · ecfr.eu

[forky123]

I hope these aren’t the same pollsters who predict elections. Polls depend on how the question is phrased. Where are the neutral options. It’s very hard to think positively about a leader deliberately targeting civilians and infrastructure of a peaceful neighbour. It’s also hard to think positively about a leader who has inflicted acts of war on your home soil. 

[njf]

1 hour ago, forky123 said:

I hope these aren’t the same pollsters who predict elections. Polls depend on how the question is phrased. Where are the neutral options. It’s very hard to think positively about a leader deliberately targeting civilians and infrastructure of a peaceful neighbour. It’s also hard to think positively about a leader who has inflicted acts of war on your home soil. 

The exact wording were provided along with the numbers.  It is a single poll so it may or may not be accurate.  But it is done by the Europeans to gain some understanding to why the rest of the world are not joining them to sanction Russia. 

[unicorn]

So what if Turks feel Russia is a "necessary partner"? They're right in that Turkish sanctions against Russia would hurt the Turks, probably pretty badly. They did shoot down a Russian plane a few years ago. "Necessary partner" doesn't mean friend. And, yes, China would suffer as well if it sanctioned Russia. Not as much as the Turks, though. 

[alvnv]

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

So what if Turks feel Russia is a "necessary partner"? They're right in that Turkish sanctions against Russia would hurt the Turks, probably pretty badly. They did shoot down a Russian plane a few years ago. "Necessary partner" doesn't mean friend. And, yes, China would suffer as well if it sanctioned Russia. Not as much as the Turks, though. 

Furthermore, Turkey has been selling Bayraktar drones to the Ukraine 

[Moses]

10 hours ago, unicorn said:

Just because a country doesn't apply sanctions doesn't mean it's neutral in the matter.

Well, I can tell you what matters: Russian export in 2022 grew 5%.

[forky123]

8 hours ago, njf said:

The exact wording were provided along with the numbers.  It is a single poll so it may or may not be accurate.  But it is done by the Europeans to gain some understanding to why the rest of the world are not joining them to sanction Russia. 

You miss the point. The poll options have been selected to make the Russians either partners/allies or rival/adversary. Those are far from the only choices and so the poll skews as the pollsters want. It’s why polls regularly fail to predict accurately. 

[Moses]

3 hours ago, alvnv said:

Furthermore, Turkey has been selling Bayraktar drones to the Ukraine 

And started to build up Bayraktar manufacturing plant in Russia.

https://www.cnnturk.com/video/turkiye/putin-baykarla-beraber-calisalim-diyor

[stevenkesslar]

16 hours ago, njf said:

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."

 

So these are various reactions to points made in a number of threads.  Starting with @njf's point about "resentment against the United States."

How Global Public Opinion of China Has Shifted in the Xi Era

The dramatic shift in global opinion since Xi came to power is a huge spike in unfavorable views of China by almost any country that falls under the "Western" category.  Before Xi, Americans were split 50/50 in terms of viewing China favorably.  In the US a plurality of Americans had favorable views of China, until Xi took power.  Now the overwhelming majority have unfavorable views.   You can blame that on superpower rivalry, if you want.  But the same thing has gradually happened all over the "Western" world.  Including Japan, Australia, South Korea.  A whole bunch of things seem to have added up.  Including perceived military threats, Hong Kong, and COVID.

The exact opposite has happened with the US.  But that's again mostly measuring "Western" nations. They did not like W., or Trump.  Wonder why? I'm guessing "resentment" about things like the Iraq war, or just Trump being Trump, help explain it.  They liked Obama a lot.  Biden, almost as much.  Trust in the US and NATO is high right now.  Again, that's the EU and other allies like Australia and South Korea.

Of the other big countries in that ECFR poll, it's interesting that only one country has a majority of people that see Russia as an "ally":  India, at 51 %.  Only 35 % of Chinese and 14 % of Turks see Russia as an ally.  So it's clear that what matters more in these countries is that Russia is seen as a "necessary partner."  In India about half the population also sees the US as an ally.  And over 80 % of Indians see BOTH the US and Russia as either an ally, or a necessary partner.  So what comes across loud and clear is that lots of countries don't want to, and won't, take sides.  It about their economy, stupid.

16 hours ago, unicorn said:

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. 

We agree.  My point was that the US and EU are "circling the wagons," including militarily, and the rest of the world like China and India and Turkey are not.  But you and several others have made these important points about shades of grey in a multipolar world.  So from the UN vote on condemning the attack, it's clear that the world overwhelmingly disapproves of what Russia did.  But, as you stated, countries like Turkey are not going to let that fuck up their economy.

As I said above, I think that this is mostly a good thing.  Even if it complicates the world.  When the US was the top dog, what did we do?  Invade Iraq.  If China were the overwhelming top dog, I assume they would force Taiwan into reunification.  Including by military force, if needed.  In a world where India or Turkey can work against such uses of force, or the use of nuclear weapons by anyone, that is probably a good thing.  As opposed to a world in which everyone has to pledge fealty to one or another superpower.

It's also interesting, and probably good, that none of these big countries surveyed by the ECFR think either the US or China will be globally dominant.  In the US, only 1 in 5 think either country will be globally dominant.  In China, about 1 in 3 think one power will be globally dominant, with about 1 in 4 Chinese saying China will dominate.  But most people in the US and China see themselves living in a bipolar (US and China) or multipolar world.  Or they just don't know.  India is the only country where a slight plurality (31 %) think the US will dominate.  In China and Turkey slight pluralities see a multipolar world.  

All of this is why I think Russia is in trouble.  And China has to be careful about how it takes the moral high ground in standing for peace.  One thing that is interesting is that majorities in the US and EU say Ukraine shows Russia is weaker than thought.  Whereas Indians, Chinese, Turks, and Russians all think Ukraine makes Russia look stronger.  We'd have to have a whole thread on propaganda to unpack that.  Including what you could call Western propaganda by the MSM.  But just based on hard facts in this poll, maybe Putin can think he is winning the war of perception of global strength.  That also could explain why countries like India don't particularly care to mess with Vlad. 

But if the idea is that in a multipolar world right makes right, that's a big problem.   Which is why the US, NATO, and the EU are unlikely to back off.  And China is not in a position to show, through actions if not words, that it's okay to ignore sovereign nations like China/Taiwan.  Oops, I meant Ukraine.  😉

My liberal Democratic perspective is that the biggest cause of the growing chasm between the US and EU on the one hand, and China on the other, is the perception that China was supposed to transition into a democratic capitalist trading partner.  It's a bit rich that the same Republican Party that was a cheerleader for big multinational corporations and "free trade" when millions of US factory jobs were going down the shitter while W. was President now want to blame it all on Joe Xiden and Hillary Clinton.  Regardless, both parties got the memo that people in swing states like Michigan care about these things.  And they are not fans of seeing their middle class jobs go to China.  Even if they like cheap Chinese toys, and stuff.

Most in China Call Their Nation A Democracy, Most in U.S. Say America Isn't

Quote

When asked whether they believe their country is democratic, those in China topped the list, with some 83% saying the communist-led People's Republic was a democracy. A resounding 91% said that democracy is important to them.

But in the U.S., which touts itself as a global beacon of democracy, only 49% of those asked said their country was a democracy. And just over three-quarters of respondents, 76%, said democracy was important.

To me, that's a surprising and almost incomprehensible finding.  I went looking for that Newsweek article to see how it might be explained.  And one possible answer could be that it's just what people say to not piss off their authoritarian leaders.

But I think another more likely explanation is that many Chinese believe what Zhou Bo said in that DW interview I posted above.  That "Chinese democracy" means Team Xi and the CCP is looking after the interests of the people.  And has made great progress in eradication of abject poverty and hunger, and development of a middle class. The US and EU deserve a lot of credit for that.  If China were still stuck in The Great Leap (Not) Forward, and all that US and European (and Indian) capital and know how had not flooded into China (and Asia in general), there would be a lot more poverty and a much smaller middle class in China.  The American ex-factory workers who came out worse of course don't view that as an achievement.  So this is a big problem.  Meanwhile, Californians in Rho Khanna's district in Silicon Valley, which is majority Asian American, kind of like the idea of global trade.

At the very least, if democracy in China means poverty eradication and building a middle class, World War III does not help achieve that.  So I think that still leaves us in a place where rising and dominant economic powers like the US, China, and India all have an interest in peace and stability and order.  Even if we have very different views of what order means 

Vlad simply doesn't prioritize peace and order.   And he is proving it.  Despite the complexities of an emerging multipolar world, I just don't think this is going to work out well for him.  And Russia.  I take it that all the Russians fleeing Russia so as not to become Ukrainian fertilizer agree with me.  

[njf]

3 hours ago, stevenkesslar said:

Vlad simply doesn't prioritize peace and order.   And he is proving it.  Despite the complexities of an emerging multipolar world, I just don't think this is going to work out well for him.  And Russia.  I take it that all the Russians fleeing Russia so as not to become Ukrainian fertilizer agree with me.  

Although Putin is a despot, he is still only one piece in this chess match of the global competition. His options and decisions are constrained by others.  On the other hand, Biden has the greatest influence and most options to dictate what will happen next. 

At the moment, he decided to push for a Russian defeat by escalating the military supports to Ukraine because Ukrainians were clearly willing to pay the price for a total military victory against Russia. The fault in this path of action is really an assumption that this conflict will not escalate to a nuclear Armageddon.

The question that needs to asked and answered is what will be the US reaction if Putin uses a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine.   Here are  possible options: 1. Direct NATO/US involvement in the war and they will try to fight it with only conventional weapons, which US can certainly win; 2. a limited nuclear strike on Russia as a warning; 3. all out strikes against Russia with nuclear strategic weapons.  The sad truth is the option 1 and 2 are not really viable options because Russia will not be willing to be constrained to a type of war that they will lose.  So it will be a road to Armageddon.

The next question is whether Putin will push the nuclear button when Ukrainians defeat the Russians on the battlefield by reclaiming eastern Donbass and Crimea. Biden's advisers seem to think that Putin will not.  Plenty of people think that Putin will.  It is interesting that there may be a correlation between the perception of Russian strength and Putin's willingness to use nuclear weapons. It seems that people who perceive Russia as strong believe that Russia will use all means to fight (i.e. 5-6k nuclear warheads) whereas people who think that Russia is militarily weak have taken nuclear weapons out of the equation. This seems to a peculiar mental blind spot for neoliberals in Biden's administration.  Is Putin a modern day Hitler or not?  If he is, why would he refrain from going nuclear? If he is not, why the war must continue at all costs?

I think that the smarter option for Biden is to declare a victory, which is a real one by the simple fact that Putin failed to topple the Ukraine government. A ceasefire at the existing line of contact with maintaining economic isolation of Russia should be viewed as a great outcome from the US perspective.  Pushing for more would mean a real and substantial risk of nuclear Armageddon.

 

[stevenkesslar]

On 2/22/2023 at 2:10 PM, 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."

 

On 2/22/2023 at 5:33 PM, 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.

I think the verdict is in.  China's diplomatic tightrope walk is not going well.

You ain’t no middleman: EU and NATO slam China’s bid to be a Ukraine peacemaker

Von der Leyen says Beijing ‘has taken sides’ while NATO’s Stoltenberg says ‘China doesn’t have much credibility’.

In fairness, we are talking about two different things.  It was completely predictable that just about anyone in the EU (expect Hungary, which MAGA folks love) would say - in blunt terms - that China is not a middleman, and is lacking in credibility.  Europeans are circling their wagons against Russia.  Arguably even moreso than the US, which more than anything doesn't want to get directly dragged into this war.

That said, those ECFR survey results also document that India and Turkey and China have zero interest in taking sides.  And you are right that this fight is forcing China and Russia into a closer embrace - whether that's what they actually want, or not.  My own view is that Putin is fine with embracing China.  He can hardly portray himself as a Western leader advancing the cause of democracy, or global peace.  Xi is in a difficult position.  No matter how much his trade with Russia grew, it is a fraction of what trade with the US and EU look like.

And here we have it:

China's GDP unlikely to surpass U.S. in next few decades: JCER

Quote

There are two main factors behind China's expected slowdown in economic growth.

First is zero-COVID. Although China announced measures on Dec. 7 to ease some curbs, infections are increasing in cities such as Beijing

The second factor is U.S. restrictions on exports to China. In October, President Joe Biden's administration imposed new regulations requiring exporters to obtain licenses from the Commerce Department to sell advanced semiconductors and other high-technology products to Chinese companies. In addition, Republicans, who will hold the majority of the seats in the U.S. lower house from January, are demanding tough action on China.

That chart is based on all kinds of assumptions.  This year looks worse for China.  Maybe next year will look better.  And the idea that China simply won't overtake the US has more to do with China's internal policies - like zero-COVID and labor shortages.  But it doesn't help China at all if trade with the US keeps going sideways.   The perception that China is siding with Russia on a war that Americans and Europeans detest and view as Russia's aggression is not going to help China's economy.  

 

[njf]

17 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

 

I think the verdict is in.  China's diplomatic tightrope walk is not going well.

You ain’t no middleman: EU and NATO slam China’s bid to be a Ukraine peacemaker

Von der Leyen says Beijing ‘has taken sides’ while NATO’s Stoltenberg says ‘China doesn’t have much credibility’.

In fairness, we are talking about two different things.  It was completely predictable that just about anyone in the EU (expect Hungary, which MAGA folks love) would say - in blunt terms - that China is not a middleman, and is lacking in credibility.  Europeans are circling their wagons against Russia.  Arguably even moreso than the US, which more than anything doesn't want to get directly dragged into this war.

That said, those ECFR survey results also document that India and Turkey and China have zero interest in taking sides.  And you are right that this fight is forcing China and Russia into a closer embrace - whether that's what they actually want, or not.  My own view is that Putin is fine with embracing China.  He can hardly portray himself as a Western leader advancing the cause of democracy, or global peace.  Xi is in a difficult position.  No matter how much his trade with Russia grew, it is a fraction of what trade with the US and EU look like.

And here we have it:

China's GDP unlikely to surpass U.S. in next few decades: JCER

That chart is based on all kinds of assumptions.  This year looks worse for China.  Maybe next year will look better.  And the idea that China simply won't overtake the US has more to do with China's internal policies - like zero-COVID and labor shortages.  But it doesn't help China at all if trade with the US keeps going sideways.   The perception that China is siding with Russia on a war that Americans and Europeans detest and view as Russia's aggression is not going to help China's economy.  

 

The EU response to the Chinese proposal is expected lol.  They are really not the targeted audience for the Chinese side. 

The economic prediction is suspect because it is based on the number from 3 covid years.  What is missing from this analysis is that all predictions are based on US dollar.  The biggest "war" on the economic side is the dollar denominated US debt. This may need to go a different thread as it is very complicated.  There are a lot of talks about what will happen in this summer with the debt ceiling approaching.  A simple fact is that a devaluation of US dollar by 20% against Chinese currency will make Chinese economy instantly bigger than the US. 

[stevenkesslar]

1 hour ago, njf said:

It is interesting that there may be a correlation between the perception of Russian strength and Putin's willingness to use nuclear weapons. It seems that people who perceive Russia as strong believe that Russia will use all means to fight (i.e. 5-6k nuclear warheads) whereas people who think that Russia is militarily weak have taken nuclear weapons out of the equation.

Excellent point.

What I keep reading is that Biden is driven by two things, above all else:  1.  No US ground troops.   2.  No nuclear war.  I think it is a safe assumption that China and India are adamantly opposed to the use of nukes.  They have pretty much said that publicly.

Here's a Fox News piece I found interesting.  Because it's basically a debate between the more normal Fox right wing, and the even further out there anti-China, anti-Biden right wing, who kind of view Joe Xiden as being in bed with China.  Weird stuff.

Koffler to Kilmeade: Our Ukraine Strategy Will Not Work

There's a 12 minute video embedded in that article.  I've never heard of Koffler before.  But I assume her views align with the most saber rattling part of the right.  Who now assumes that China is the enemy, even more than Russia.  And Xi would be happy to start a two theater war.  She is pretty far out there.  A majority of 56 % of Americans see Russia as an enemy.  A minority of 42 % of Americans see China as an enemy. 30 % of Biden voters see China as an enemy. 66 % of Trump voters see China as an enemy.  And many of the hard core Trump MAGA types see Joe as Xi's puppet.  Who knew?

That said, Koffler says several things that make sense.

First, and most important, Putin is not suicidal.  So the idea that he can't win a conventional war in Ukraine, but he would trigger a nuclear war by invading Poland, is a logical disconnect.  You'd really have to stretch it to an extreme, and argue that Putin's own life is at risk.  And China would be okay with a nuclear strike as a last resort to prevent Russia from being run by some pro-US leader.  It sounds more like a Hollywood movie than even a remote possibility in the real world.

Second, she is right that a win/win for Putin could be that if he can't win a ground war in Ukraine, at least he can demolish it.  I could not read those paywalled articles @njf posted from WaPo above.  But this recent article by one of the authors, Graham Allison, underscores the huge devastation in Ukraine.  35 % of GDP gone, 40 % of energy capacity gone, over 13 million people displaced.  Koffler barely mentions the drain this has on Russia, as well.  As Allison notes, the long term costs to Russia will be massive.  But you can also argue that Putin can afford to mostly not give a shit.  

Third, Koffler is also likely right that Putin would agree to some land for peace deal.  Whether Ukraine would is a whole different question.  But if both sides are now so dug in that Ukraine can't take back the Donbas, let alone Crimea, that will determine the outlines of what land for peace means.  The burden is on Ukraine to prove whether it can actually push Russia back on its own territory, or not.

The biggest problem that Koffler does not address is Kilmeade's point that if Ukraine agrees to some type of land for peace deal that allows Putin to have up to 20 % of what was Ukraine, he has every reason to go for the other 80 % as soon as he can.  And while Putin is not suicidal, so he won't invade Warsaw and start World War III, that doesn't mean he can't try for Kyiv again.

This is why I like Kissinger's revised thinking.  He is more than likely right that some type of land for peace deal is going to be how this war ends.  Unless Ukraine again surprises everybody by just rolling through to Crimea.  But the cost to Ukraine has been huge.  And they can't keep fighting this way forever.  Arguably, Putin can.  If it's true that Putin is not suicidal, so he won't invade a NATO country, the way to prevent him from going for Kyiv again is to make Ukraine a NATO country.  I take that to be why Kissinger flip flopped.  It makes sense that a neutral Ukraine simply invites Vlad to try again later.  A NATO Ukraine means he's not going to try again, because that would be suicide.

Which brings us right back to Koffler's point.  It is arguably a win for Putin to just keep destroying Ukraine.  Whatever the cost to Russia's economy or future trade, Vlad may view that as less bad than having a democratic Ukraine that is a member of NATO.  And if that's true, Putin can keep this going as long as he wants. Until Ukraine dangles some peace plan in front of him that he can accept.  Which they won't, of course.  That's what I see as the somewhat likely recipe for permanent war.  Or permanent stalemate.

The good news is it at least avoids nuclear Armageddon.  Because I think Koffler is right.  Vlad is not suicidal.  And while it may be Vlad's least bad option, compared to tolerating a democratic Ukraine in NATO, it still means Russia ended up worse than it started.  I keep coming back to the idea that Vlad started the war, and he will decide when he is willing to end it.  And Kissinger make a lot of sense in thinking that the only way to really end the war now is for Ukraine to end up in NATO.  Not gonna be easy at all.

 

 

 

[forky123]

1 hour ago, njf said:

Although Putin is a despot, he is still only one piece in this chess match of the global competition. His options and decisions are constrained by others.  On the other hand, Biden has the greatest influence and most options to dictate what will happen next. 

At the moment, he decided to push for a Russian defeat by escalating the military supports to Ukraine because Ukrainians were clearly willing to pay the price for a total military victory against Russia. The fault in this path of action is really an assumption that this conflict will not escalate to a nuclear Armageddon.

Biden does not have the greatest influence on anything but the west. Putin is the nut job threatening to use nukes. 
 

He decided to give people fighting for their very existence weapons. As for assumptions that it won’t escalate to nuclear Armageddon, you make assumptions that appeasing Putin won’t lead to the same. Once you’ve let one nation fall to a rabid dictator, it becomes much harder to draw a line. There is no clear path to peace in this situation with a very unstable dictator. 

[njf]

41 minutes ago, stevenkesslar said:

You made a lot of good points but, you still have avoided the two most critical questions: a.  Will Putin use nuclear weapons in Ukraine if Ukrainians retake Crimea?  b.  What will be US responses for such a nuclear fist strike?  Everything else really depends on your answers to these two questions.

 

 

 

 

[alvnv]

9 hours ago, Moses said:

And started to build up Bayraktar manufacturing plant in Russia.

https://www.cnnturk.com/video/turkiye/putin-baykarla-beraber-calisalim-diyor

Turkey is opportunistic - they will do anything to turn a dollar. Erdogan doesn’t have a problem with war profiteering either. He learned early on of the impact of Russian tourism on Turkey’s economy, so he’s trying to work both sides. They made a pretty penny selling Turkish real estate to Russians (I wonder if they’re going to try to correct the construction deficiencies in the rest of the country).

[alvnv]

Here’s another interesting article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/how-the-war-in-ukraine-ends

[unicorn]

1 hour ago, alvnv said:

Here’s another interesting article: https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-new-yorker-interview/how-the-war-in-ukraine-ends

That article's behind a paywall. Can you summarize it? I wish I knew someone who really understood the actual military situation. My sense is that if Putin started using nukes, that it would end up more horribly for Russia than for the West. By West, I'm including Japan, South Korea, Australia, and NZ. If he goes too kooky, Japan might even get the southern Kuril islands back...

[forrestreid]

Ever since the demise of the Politics section on the "Company of Men" board, there seems to have been a big uptick in politics discussion on this board...

 

I’m not sure how I feel about that, but I nevertheless couldn't resist adding my tuppence to this topic.

 

Just in regard to the amount of people in India who identify Russia as an ally, this is probably best understood in historical terms.

 

Traditionally, India had two big enemies, China and Pakistan. In the late 1980's, America was closely allied to Pakistan, with both supporting the mujaheddin in Afghanistan, and at that time also, America infuriated India by refusing to definitively take the Indian side in the border dispute between India and China.

 

India moved closer to Russia partly in response. Traditionally, the Indian army purchased a lot of weaponry from the Soviet Union,  and later Russia. Since that time I think many of the more politically engaged Indians saw Russia was a traditional "ally" of India, in a purely hard-headed geopolitical sense.

 

In the last 20 years as Pakistan and America became more estranged, and particularly since about 2010 as America and China became major rivals, America is a lot more supportive of the India side.

 

However, I think the inclination of many in India to regard Russia as an "ally" remains. It is in the same way that many Americans would say that Saudi Arabia is an "ally" if I asked about it, if they are aware of the decades-long "marriage of convenience" alliance between the US and Saudi. However, I doubt that too many of those people would feel much genuine warmth for Saudi Arabia. 

I think for many in India, the way they view Russia is similar. 

 

Therefore asking a question about being an "ally" is a bit loaded. I would be more interested to hear a question about, say, which side the interviewees had more sympathy for in the dispute in question.  

 

Edited February 24, 2023 by forrestreid
clarity

[Latbear4blk]

Americans and their friends have a huge talent to guess (and condemn) other countries' intentions. What do you think is US foreign policies' compass? Peace?

[forky123]

Putin is using missiles on blocks of flats, shelling nuclear power stations and using mercenaries to murder civilians. Not much guessing involved.

[njf]

 

[njf]

 

[stevenkesslar]

7 hours ago, njf said:

You made a lot of good points but, you still have avoided the two most critical questions: a.  Will Putin use nuclear weapons in Ukraine if Ukrainians retake Crimea?  b.  What will be US responses for such a nuclear fist strike?  Everything else really depends on your answers to these two questions.

Actually, I did answer that.  Even that right-winger on Fox who thinks that China wants a two theater war - which I view as over the top conspiracy thinking - says that Putin is not suicidal.  He will not start a nuclear war. 

In particular, he will not start a nuclear war with NATO.  So you'd have to game out the small and vanishing chance that he would drop nukes on Ukraine, thinking it would end there.  But, again, even that would be suicidal.  In part because it would demolish Putin in the EU.  And the question is not only how the US and NATO would respond.  How would China respond?  How would India respond?  I think it would be suicidal for him.  Period.  But as that New Yorker article @alvnv posted states, there are endless amounts of other bad things Putin could do.  Cutting underwater cables.  Poisoning water supplies.  So we should all be worried about what Vlad might do.

I think this Politico article asks what is probably the most critical question:

                                   The West Is Avoiding the Big Question About Ukraine

Until the U.S. and allies decide what victory looks like for Kyiv, Europe isn’t likely to have peace.

There are limits to the comparison of Ukraine today to Poland in World War II.  One good comparison is that both can be blown up easily enough.  As the New Yorker article points out, the costs of reconstruction will be massive, and take decades.  But Vlad is no Adolph.  Germany and Japan were two of the fastest growing countries in the world in the 1930's.  Because they were ramping up a war economy.  Vlad may not have been hurt by sanctions as much as we'd hoped.  But his economy (like his penis, rumor has it 🤫 ) is a tiny joke in the bigger scheme of things.  The situation in Poland was pretty hopeless, since they happened to be between Hitler and Stalin.  Ukraine has friends on one side that are rushing to protect it.  Including Poland.  So Ukraine is in a much better position than Poland was.

That New Yorker article is a good example of the ambiguity.  It does a good job of sketching out how the war will end.  For example, Ukraine is unlikely to take back all its territory.  Which probably means there will be more of a cease fire than peace.  Ukraine will join the EU.  But the article is somewhat vague about what a "security guaranty" actually means.  It will be hard to rebuild Ukraine, which should be the priority, when Vlad could just decide to do the whole thing over again in two or five or ten years.  So I'll be broken record that I think Kissinger is right.  And people on the left and right are coming to that conclusion, it seems like.  Whatever Ukraine is has to be absorbed into both the EU and NATO sooner rather than later.  NATO is already proving that it won't let Putin win in Ukraine.  So NATO and Ukraine are already married, even if it was a shotgun affair.  So what's left to be determined is precisely how Vlad does not win what he wanted.  And precisely what kind of marriage between Ukraine and NATO prevents him from trying to get what he wants again.  

And that is, as the New Yorker article states, a victory.  It is exactly what he didn't want.  Nor did he want a revitalized NATO.  Nor did he want Americans and Europeans embracing and agreeing with what a murderous fascist small-dicked sadistic piece of shit Putin is.  Russia is still fucked with Putin as its leader, as the New Yorker argues.  Turkey and China can make money trading with him.  But his economy is tiny.  Maybe he looks strong to some with all his nukes.  And people fear that.  But everybody still knows he is a sadistic small-cocked sadist.  Who actually respects Russia?  Nobody.  Who wants to live in Russia?  Nobody.

Team Vlad can kill as many children and rape as many women and torture or deport as many innocent civilians as they want.  And the sooner the fighting stops, the less of that will happen.  But none of it changes the fact that small-cocked, small economy Vlad is just that.  Not The Big Man On The Block he wants to be. China's trade with Russia is about the same as either Australia or Canada.  Vlad is a teeny teeny little economy that is pathetic and small and can't even grow anymore.  It's just a fact.  Sorry, Vlad.  Your economy may not be as pathetic as we all hoped.  But you are still an impotent little cry baby with a loser economy that can't grow.  Nothing changes that.  

A united front: How the US and the EU can move beyond trade tensions to counter China

That is just a policy paper by ECFR, the same group that did that poll above that shows that India and Turkey don't want to take sides.  But it probably reflects how lots of elites and leaders in the EU view this.  And it is not good news for China.

Quote

The EU would be wiser to focus on what actually matters to the US: China. It should deliver a clear and simple message that the IRA makes it more costly and less likely for EU states to align with the US on China. The US cannot afford to lose Europe if it wants to prevail in its economic rivalry with China. US efforts to stop technology transfers to China, for example, will only be effective in the long run if the EU plays along. Beijing is aware of this and has already used the IRA as an invitation to Europeans to continue to rely on Chinese clean energy supply chains.

Quote

Any industrial strategy response to the IRA by Europe should clearly highlight the China factor. European decision-makers need to confront the reality that lies beyond the immediate IRA challenge: the health of the transatlantic relationship will hinge ever more on Europeans’ willingness to work with the US to confront China’s geo-economic challenge. Both sides will lose if they do not find a solution to the China trade-security conundrum. The US policy on China is unlikely to yield the desired outcomes without close alignment with Europe. European governments need to make clear to the US that refraining from protectionist measures towards allies will be critical to attaining that alignment.

If Vlad had not invaded Ukraine, it would have left a huge opening for China to play Europe against a protectionist America.  But small-cocked, small economy Vlad has created a big problem for China with the West.  The EU is seeing the same things Americans are.  And they don't want to be dependent on China for computer chips or rare earths in the way that they were dependent on Russia for gas and oil.  So it is predictable that the renewed military romance between the US and Europe will be the model for the renewed economic marriage between them as well.  China could end all trade with Russia and be just fine.  It can't end trade with the US and EU and South Korea and Japan and be just fine.

So what does China get out of the bargain?  Small-cocked, small economy Vlad. Woo hoo!  What a guy!  What a murderer!

Poor Xi.  I almost feel sorry for him. 

In the end, I think economic right makes right.  China has a massive property bubble and an impending debt crisis.  Vlad can't fix their problems.  A growing, peaceful, and orderly global economy can.  One more reason Xi and Modi and Erdogan are a hard NO on nuclear Armageddon.