It's interesting that Putin asked Xi for permission before invading. Putin seems set on trying to make Russia into a world power but with this move he seems to have completely neutered that possibility in the near term, and cemented Russia's reliance on China as a "big brother" on the world stage.
Maybe he cares less about perception than practical effect? Militarily, their nukes will always be a thing. Economically, neither putin nor anyone else serious was under the assumption that Russia's economy was great. Is him asking Xi all that different than Bush asking Tony Blair before Iraq?
At the UN security council, Russia and China are always vetoeing measures and they like to back each other up. It's not that Putin asked for permission but that he did not want complete isolation.
On China's part, their espionage operations in the west are very telling in that it reveals their strategy a bit. They want dirt on everyone and they want to understand the west to achieve long term victory. Whether russia wins or loses, China wins because they get to observe who does what. When it comes time to invade taiwan or south china sea, they will be well prepared and they will know which pressure points to press in the west.
The greatest geopolitical mistake the west made was to take on both Russia and China at the same time. At any time one of them have to be your friend if you want to overpower the other. Putin or not Russia will not be friendly to the west. Their nukes and largest land mass of any country bordering america, europe and china means the west cannot afford to fight China on any front anytime soon.
To the public it seems that way but in reality US,Russia and China having all those nukes and huge land mass theit leaders always see themselves as the big guy. Have you seen Putin at G11? He has to be at the center when they take pictures because of his ego. Hard to believe him considering himself lesser than Xi.
> Is him asking Xi all that different than Bush asking Tony Blair before Iraq?
I would argue yes. Bush was looking for a "coalition of the willing" to go along with his lies about why it was necessary to invade. AFAICT Putin wasn't trying to get China to join in the war on Ukraine. He moved the war to accommodate China. Bush would have invaded either way, it seems, given allies like France called him out and refused.
> At the UN security council, Russia and China are always vetoeing measures and they like to back each other up.
The link mentions China's reticence to back Russia up on the world stage here, specifically by abstaining from relevant votes at the UN instead of voting with Russia. Putin misjudged this as well.
> It's not that Putin asked for permission but that he did not want complete isolation.
This is reasonable, but it seems like Xi set Putin's timeline for invasion here to after the olympics, so there was some level of getting permission / obsequiousness to China. It seems like Putin expected more help and is not getting it.
> Whether russia wins or loses, China wins
Yes, I agree here. Russia has been completely marginalized by Putin's decisions. China comes out looking very reasonable.
> The greatest geopolitical mistake the west made was to take on both Russia and China at the same time.
I might be naive but I don't see that happening at the moment?
> the west cannot afford to fight China on any front anytime soon.
I don't really think this was on the table, barring an invasion of Taiwan. In any case most folks place Russia's military above China's in capability, and Russia's military seems extremely ill-prepared to wage modern combat.
What would China, India, Pakistan, and the other 30 some countries that abstained from voting on a meaningless non-binding motion gain by voting NO instead?
The signal couldn’t be any clearer as is. Countries that represent over two billion people, higher combined GDP and military spending than the US, aren’t backing the West.
Did not back them up at the UN or these news headlines about China not helping Russia with this or that?
From what it seems, China is absolutely helping them in actions, while pretending to be neutral, and they’ll do everything to maintain the appearance of neutrality.
China even has state-owned, single-purpose banks that don’t touch USD at all, specifically for sanction-busting. Russian banks are now issuing UnionPay cards, apparently.
India, supposedly a US ally in the region, buys most of their military hardware from Russia.
Turkey, a NATO country, also buys weapons from Russia, and openly refused to implement sanctions.
Pakistan, under pressure from tons of 20+ diplomats, openly defied them and did not vote YES, either, and then their PM went to visit Putin.
South Korea refused to implement EU/US sanctions, and instead sought to be exempt, and implement their own, supposedly equivalent, sanctions. That’s another way to circumvent sanctions, as the final regulations and loopholes could be quite different, despite being legally “equivalent”.
The West will of course down play all of this, but it seems the unipolar days are history.
> Did not back them up at the UN or these news headlines about China not helping Russia with this or that?
Both.
> From what it seems, China is absolutely helping them in actions,
China is helping Russia just enough to ensure the Russian state becomes a client of China. This is a major reshaping of their relationship and a huge strategic blunder on Putin's part. He really screwed up here. This was the entire thrust of my original comment, which you don't seem to disagree with?
> India, supposedly a US ally in the region
India and Russia are closer allies than India and the US, at the government level. They have a "special and privileged strategic partnership". There is no surprise, here.
> Turkey, a NATO country, also buys weapons from Russia, and openly refused to implement sanctions.
Erdogan has been more friendly with Russia than the US for a few years now. The war in Ukraine seems to have strained this relationship, though. It seems Erdogan is trying to play the fence, here.
> The West will of course down play all of this, but it seems the unipolar days are history.
I don't understand your point here. Are you saying Russia is fine and the west has screwed up? What did the west do wrong, here, in your opinion? What did Russia do wrong? Should Putin have expected any negative consequences for his actions?
AFAICT, the US/EU alliance seems to be a lot stronger than Putin thought, and the condemnation globally has been much harsher than Putin planned on. I don't know or care about "Pax Americana" or what have you - I'm glad Biden has let the EU take center stage in responding to a war of aggression in the European theater. Putin has strengthened the ties of the west, it's just sad it took him murdering Ukrainians to do it.
For all those who have and will suffer from this conflict, at least know the eight-point Russian demands, specifically that NATO rule out further expansion; given those demands NATO should be expecting either the unacceptable Russian demands to be withdrawn or preparing many ballistic missile interceptors, i.e. SM-3.
While we're understanding demands, let's consider the implicit demand of NATO members that every sovereign nation in the world be allowed to sign treaties without being invaded by a dictatorship.
Given that NATO's demands are not compatible with Russia's, I suppose people need to decide which side's demands are more reasonable.
One solution would be to offer Putin an vote in Ukrain for people whether they want to join EU/NATO or Russia. He's so popular anyways (winning elections by 80%) he shouldn't be afraid of it /s
I don't know if Cuba signed a treaty with the USSR to have nukes stationed on the island, but you're right that there was hypocrisy in putting US nukes in Turkey but forbidding USSR nukes in Cuba.
Fortunately that was resolved amicably without the US invading Cuba. (Ironically, the Bay of Pigs Invasion occurred the year before the Cuban Missile Crisis).
"In response to the presence of American Jupiter ballistic missiles in Italy and Turkey, and the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion of 1961, Soviet First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev agreed to Cuba's request to place nuclear missiles on the island to deter a future invasion. An agreement was reached during a secret meeting between Khrushchev and Cuban Prime Minister Fidel Castro in July 1962, and construction of a number of missile launch facilities started later that summer."
[...]
"After several days of tense negotiations, an agreement was reached between Kennedy and Khrushchev. Publicly, the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba and return them to the Soviet Union, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for a US public declaration and agreement to not invade Cuba again. Secretly, the United States agreed that it would dismantle all of the Jupiter MRBMs, which had been deployed in Turkey against the Soviet Union."
Well, NATO actually has several demands, including the demand that civilian ships be able to travel safely through international waters[0], but even their narrow demand about invasions by dictatorships is incompatible with Russia's demands.
Russia demands neutrality to be enshrined in Ukrainian constitution which will disallow Ukraine from joining EU as well. Basically they want Ukraine to remain like Belarus: poor and subservient.
“global north/global south” has become (as if it ever was not) a completely pointless circumlocution for what it describes as “first world/third world” is.
Neither Switzerland, Norway, Iceland nor Lichtenstein are in the EU, all are fairly well off to very rich countries.
Also, afaik, the demand was not about joining EU, but NATO?
Austria, Finland, Sweden are not part of NATO, and are doing fine.
Plenty of very poor subservient countries in the EU too, just look at how “nicely” they dealt with Greece. Romania and Bulgaria are also roughly as poor as Ukraine, on the PPP basis.
Ukraine could've just had both sides (NATO and EAEU/Russia) pay for the Ukrainian defence/security, then figure out a side deal with EU, and be part of their economic area and customs union, but not cede sovereignty to EU.
They could've done it. The real question is why that didn't happen, why did they want to cede sovereignty to the EU so bad?
> why did they want to cede sovereignty to the EU so bad?
Signing a treaty (which you can later leave) is not a loss of sovereignty, it is an exercise of sovereignty. If you want to be reductionist about it, a country joining NATO would be a loss of sovereignty too, because they would be committing their foreign and military policy to a supranational body.
Similarly, your proposal of Ukraine promising not to join NATO (presumably as a condition in some treaty?) would also be a loss of sovereignty, by that logic, because a truly sovereign nation is entitled to apply for NATO membership whenever it wants to.
"Loss of sovereignty" is just part of Polish right-wing anti-European propaganda. The rule of law crisis in Poland has been caused by its current ruling party entirely on its own, with no help from the EU. We're talking about people who, among other things, decided not to send the Constitutional Court's ruling they didn't like to printing and pretended that this means it doesn't apply, so take any claims about "sovereignty" from them with a huge grain of salt as this word is unlikely to mean to them what it means to most people.
Sure, it might be an anti-EU meme, but this isn't meritless simply because it's anti-EU.
EU law primacy is a marked departure away from the standard, in which a ratified treaty must be implemented into national law in other to codify that international obligation into the domestic legal system.
I never understood why would one want to be in the EU, if you can simply be part of the EFTA/EEA and the Schengen area?
"In R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd, the House of Lords ruled that courts in the United Kingdom had the power to "disapply" acts of parliament if they conflicted with EU law. Lord Bridge held that Parliament had voluntarily accepted this limitation of its sovereignty and was fully aware that even if the limitation of sovereignty was not inherent in the Treaty of Rome, it had been well established by jurisprudence before Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1972." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law#...
Lord Bridge held that Parliament had voluntarily accepted this limitation of its sovereignty
Lord Bridge was a British judge, who served as Lord of Appeal in Ordinary between 1980 and 1992. A leading appellate judge, Bridge is also remembered for having presided over the Birmingham Six trial.
Qualified legal experts accept that EU law is a limitation of sovereignty.
What are your legal credentials and experience with the law?
The West already did all that. In the 1990s diplomats and businessmen flew to Moscow in droves.
The Russian people chose Putin and a return to the czarist empire.
Yes and no. The west helped put in Putin because at the time they believed he was much better than an alcoholic who might have lost to new communists.
They had hope Putin would steer Russia towards something resembling western democracies… but we have a history of having very poor assets devoted to understanding Russia. We have some who do, but those who have the ear of policymakers really don’t, and again we lack good insider spies.
Worse is that our American foreign policy-wonk industry believe they understand Russia. And Iraq, Afghanistan, China, etc. They also seem to be the same ones informing media giants from CNN to Fox. Come to think of it, while I enjoy my country we’re atrocious at understanding pretty much any other country. Except maybe Canada.
NATO was formed to defend against Russia. All letting Russia join NATO would do is make it very confusing for NATO to respond if Russia attacked another member. It's already been pushed to its limit by the war in Syria. Russia joining NATO would probably result in the agreement disintegrating entirely.
Yes, the one bordering Russia, that was contemplating joining an organization which aims missiles at Russia. This doesn't excuse the invasion but your reasoning is self-defeating.
More PRC will invade Siberia wank. In order of benefit for PRC: no invasion > russian victory > nuclear war in europe > russian defeat. There's no upside to RU defeat.
* China did not anticipate that Russia would launch a full invasion on Ukraine. If it had, it would have pulled Chinese citizens in Ukraine much earlier.
* This quote "and two major Chinese banks, the Bank of China and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, have even refused to help Russia process export transactions." does not prove anything. China has a Kunlun Bank that specializes in dealing with US sanctioned entities so that other banks can work with the US normally.
US closed their embassy on Feb 14 [0] and China didn't start pulling out their citizens until the 28th [1]. I don't think anyone would of suspected a partnership leak if the USA already announced their evacuation.
> China evacuated the first batch of its citizens from Ukraine on February 28, including over 400 Chinese students from Odessa and 200 from Kiev, four days after militaries from Russia and Ukraine engaged in battle.
It’s. Its’. Even Its’s. I know that a native speaker doesn’t even see these, but for a second-language speaker it’s a nuisance, it really breaks the flow of reading.
IMVHO the article is just a bit of fantasy bolted with very superficial geopolitical analysis: China is clearly the winner so far, sanctions against Russia for China means far more Russian natural resources to them, far bigger access to weapons tech, far more negotiation power.
Russia is not Soviet Union, it's far less powerful and so need a partner. EU was their first and best bet, they try many time to offer the olive branch to EU but USA/UK/NATO always manage to stop accepting it, only EU biggest (France, Germany and Italy) have part of gov/business interest since they are not so blind, we are natural partner and needing each others make the partnership on par, while with the USA the partnership is definitively not on par. Anyway, since the west door remain close the other option was China, a historical enemy, but a stable partner that need Russia as much Russia need China. That's is. Since then China was the winner. Russian Far East/Siberia is already "substantially Chinese" without any special geopolitical maneuvering: Russia have not invested enough there, China have done, most local infrastructure are made by China to link China to Far east/Siberia, most locals buy and sell to China, go on holiday in China etc, China do not need more than that: they have full access to natural resources and thanks to the desperation of USA/UK that push the EU away from Russia to being able to still control EU they have secured the partnership for decades to come.
Consider a thing: now Russia probably offer China nuke tech, something they have NEVER ever do before, with China industry and Russian tech and natural resources behind, China can overpower USA in few years. They do not need more than that. What I do not much understand is how desperate USA/UK can be to choose a so suicidal course.
Do you really think there is no difference for US/EU with what kind of regime to cooperate _now_? Purely economical short term gains proved to be too risky even for Germany. Moral and cultural aspects are still important enough.
Regarding nuke and other hi tech: it might turn out Russia is not as good at it as many anticipated.
EU have the highest tech in the world despite it's big push toward finance, but lack natural resources and space, Russia do have an industrial system ready enough to benefit from EU tech and natural resources + space so yes, not only in purely economical terms but in practical terms such partnership is absolutely natural and with mutual benefit: Germany know that well, but since WWII they lost their sovereignty to the USA so they have had no choice, that's what happen. No special "risk".
Regarding tech while Russia is not Soviet Union it's still have much of military research and for the little we know is already more effective than the USA since it's development is state-led, not private companies led like most of things in USA. So even if far behind for various aspects is far forward than China in tech terms and China have one of the most developed industrial system to mass produce almost anything.
In moral and cultural aspect we EU Citizens have issues comprehending USA values and duplicity while have had even LESS issues with the Soviet. Morality is always a characteristic of the people to avoid social drifts, not much a government thing but in social terms we are more near Russian population than USA or UK ones, we are far more social than competing, just as an example. Essentially "Russian threat" is no threat for us EU citizens, it's at maximum a threat for the eastern Europe area where they switch from a Russian-led dictatorship to others planted by USA/UK after the cold war and even today many are nostalgic of the Soviet because they are less oppressive that current formal, not substantial, Democracies, just as a fresh example https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1619050/post-social... if you came from US/UK you probably simply never heard of but most nazi-alike and religious extremist that infest the east Europe are made by US/UK to counter the Soviet, do to so they start at the WWII time recycling original nazi and fascist, often letting them do their revenge business against their citizens, for instance while not formally Aldo Moro killing was a USA-made killing to stop Democrazia Cristiana party to reach an agreement with Partito Comunista Italiano, just to cite one. Criminal militia like Gladio where founded by USA and UK government, the same government that have founded nazi and fascist even after the start of WWII. Historical "Operation Unthinkable" and "Operation Dropshot" are other examples of criminal intent against us for the sake of UK and USA, the Soviet or the Russian never do something like that.
Consider that USA and UK government are FAR different from their own people and they are not much more Democratic than China or Russian dictatorship, just smarter, they appear less deadly on their own Citizens than them, they master propaganda very well, but at heart they are the same. For them Citizens are not Citizens but sheep to be kept in like "for their own sake" and of course for the shepherd interests. UE government in that sense are far more moderate and more often than not just puppet regimes. The level of detachments between People and who really command is abysmal these days.
Good points. But I somehow hope we underestimate the moral aspect here (and the WWII lessons) that EU leaders and people take into account.
Also, hasn't Russia proved to be an unpredictable and dangerous partner? Rethoric question: how can any European country justify making business with it now? (Sadly, it is still easy to imagine...)
> hasn't Russia proved to be an unpredictable and dangerous partner?
IMVHO absolutely no. It prove to be a reliable and stable partner: they even keep up pumping gas, shipping carbon etc to the EU while under (partial) sanctions. They never close their door, actually the try many time to give EU the olive branch and the EU is forced by USA and UK to refuse, against EU interests...
So no, USA and UK gov prove to be unreliable partners, they want power and they do all the dirty tricks they can to grab and keep it, causing immense amount of suffering and dumping their waste on partner: 2008 subprime crisis? Dumped in EU. Overthrown MENA region dictatorship they once create with resulting mass immigration and civil wars? Against dumped in EU. Afghanistan obvious debacle after they create the talibans to fight URSS? They do not even advise up front their NATO EU partner before they live.
Of course, anyone do their own interest, that's perfectly normal, WWII was very well used by the USA in primis but was an European war at first so we can only blame ourselves for it, however so far lesson must be learnt: USA and UK gov. act for their own interest against their own citizens interest and against anyone else interests. Russian so far have obviously followed their own interests but not harming their partner. Our propaganda try to sell the Ukrainian war as something made by the Russian by surprise but if you just dig the press a very little bit you'll discover that's a complete lie, like Saddam mass-destruction weapons lie. The Ukrainian war initiate before 2014 while NATO expansion finance and arm nazi's in eastern Europe to keep it's expansion they promise they'll never do at Yalta conference after WWII. They form nazi's militias in Ukraine persecuting Russian-speaking population to a point of the Euromaidan genocide. Russians actually IMVHO have made a huge mistake: at that time instead of offering "assistance" and weapons to Russian-speaking Ukrainian they should have impromptu invading the entire Ukraine blitzkrieg-style (a super-expensive but doable risky move) stating a thing: we are here to eradicate nazi's, anyone trying to stop us declare us war, a nuclear war. That's will be risky of course, BUT effective, because at that time NATO haven't had enough propaganda on it's side to justify anything, NATO troops are well in the mud in Afghanistan and Iraq and public opinion can't be convinced that Russia is on the wrong side. They invade to stop a genocide with their official troops, not mercenary crocks, they march with their flag formally, nothing under the wood and with international press aside. A thing they do not learn from us.
Now they just can't keep the situation up so what they should have done in a risky move before they have done slowly and methodically now. But now NATO have had much more time to work on it's own public opinion depicting Russians ad the badass guys and have much more armed Ukrainian nazi's that in the meantime are now in control ALSO on regular Ukrainian army and the outcome of such slow move is a mess.
Honestly if I'm at Putin place I'll have a far harder line: a public discourse at United Nations: NATO thief, the empire of lie (cfr actual Russian propaganda) have to stop now or face a nuclear holocaust and all NATO countries Citizens should decide if they are Democratic and so, people that decide, or subject and so people that obey to they oppressors in chief against their own interest. With a bit of condiments: mass ballistic exercise around all possible borders. However I'm a Democrat witch means I think people can decide if trained and pushed to, Putin is a dictator so he think as NATO countries think that Citizens are not Citizens but flock of sheep to be pastured as the powerful wish. And that's war the real error: the entire '900 teach that yes, if trained to be sheep citizens unfortunately evolve as sheep, easily mastered by...
69 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 146 ms ] threadJust incredible miscalculations on his part.
At the UN security council, Russia and China are always vetoeing measures and they like to back each other up. It's not that Putin asked for permission but that he did not want complete isolation.
On China's part, their espionage operations in the west are very telling in that it reveals their strategy a bit. They want dirt on everyone and they want to understand the west to achieve long term victory. Whether russia wins or loses, China wins because they get to observe who does what. When it comes time to invade taiwan or south china sea, they will be well prepared and they will know which pressure points to press in the west.
The greatest geopolitical mistake the west made was to take on both Russia and China at the same time. At any time one of them have to be your friend if you want to overpower the other. Putin or not Russia will not be friendly to the west. Their nukes and largest land mass of any country bordering america, europe and china means the west cannot afford to fight China on any front anytime soon.
Big guy asking small guy suggests a very different power game compared to small guy asking big guy?
I would argue yes. Bush was looking for a "coalition of the willing" to go along with his lies about why it was necessary to invade. AFAICT Putin wasn't trying to get China to join in the war on Ukraine. He moved the war to accommodate China. Bush would have invaded either way, it seems, given allies like France called him out and refused.
> At the UN security council, Russia and China are always vetoeing measures and they like to back each other up.
The link mentions China's reticence to back Russia up on the world stage here, specifically by abstaining from relevant votes at the UN instead of voting with Russia. Putin misjudged this as well.
> It's not that Putin asked for permission but that he did not want complete isolation.
This is reasonable, but it seems like Xi set Putin's timeline for invasion here to after the olympics, so there was some level of getting permission / obsequiousness to China. It seems like Putin expected more help and is not getting it.
> Whether russia wins or loses, China wins
Yes, I agree here. Russia has been completely marginalized by Putin's decisions. China comes out looking very reasonable.
> The greatest geopolitical mistake the west made was to take on both Russia and China at the same time.
I might be naive but I don't see that happening at the moment?
> the west cannot afford to fight China on any front anytime soon.
I don't really think this was on the table, barring an invasion of Taiwan. In any case most folks place Russia's military above China's in capability, and Russia's military seems extremely ill-prepared to wage modern combat.
The signal couldn’t be any clearer as is. Countries that represent over two billion people, higher combined GDP and military spending than the US, aren’t backing the West.
Pax Americana is over.
From what it seems, China is absolutely helping them in actions, while pretending to be neutral, and they’ll do everything to maintain the appearance of neutrality.
China even has state-owned, single-purpose banks that don’t touch USD at all, specifically for sanction-busting. Russian banks are now issuing UnionPay cards, apparently.
India, supposedly a US ally in the region, buys most of their military hardware from Russia.
Turkey, a NATO country, also buys weapons from Russia, and openly refused to implement sanctions.
Pakistan, under pressure from tons of 20+ diplomats, openly defied them and did not vote YES, either, and then their PM went to visit Putin.
South Korea refused to implement EU/US sanctions, and instead sought to be exempt, and implement their own, supposedly equivalent, sanctions. That’s another way to circumvent sanctions, as the final regulations and loopholes could be quite different, despite being legally “equivalent”.
The West will of course down play all of this, but it seems the unipolar days are history.
Both.
> From what it seems, China is absolutely helping them in actions,
China is helping Russia just enough to ensure the Russian state becomes a client of China. This is a major reshaping of their relationship and a huge strategic blunder on Putin's part. He really screwed up here. This was the entire thrust of my original comment, which you don't seem to disagree with?
> India, supposedly a US ally in the region
India and Russia are closer allies than India and the US, at the government level. They have a "special and privileged strategic partnership". There is no surprise, here.
> Turkey, a NATO country, also buys weapons from Russia, and openly refused to implement sanctions.
Erdogan has been more friendly with Russia than the US for a few years now. The war in Ukraine seems to have strained this relationship, though. It seems Erdogan is trying to play the fence, here.
https://www.reuters.com/world/erdogan-says-too-early-comment...
> The West will of course down play all of this, but it seems the unipolar days are history.
I don't understand your point here. Are you saying Russia is fine and the west has screwed up? What did the west do wrong, here, in your opinion? What did Russia do wrong? Should Putin have expected any negative consequences for his actions?
AFAICT, the US/EU alliance seems to be a lot stronger than Putin thought, and the condemnation globally has been much harsher than Putin planned on. I don't know or care about "Pax Americana" or what have you - I'm glad Biden has let the EU take center stage in responding to a war of aggression in the European theater. Putin has strengthened the ties of the west, it's just sad it took him murdering Ukrainians to do it.
Given that NATO's demands are not compatible with Russia's, I suppose people need to decide which side's demands are more reasonable.
Not that 2 wrongs make a right
Fortunately that was resolved amicably without the US invading Cuba. (Ironically, the Bay of Pigs Invasion occurred the year before the Cuban Missile Crisis).
[...]
"After several days of tense negotiations, an agreement was reached between Kennedy and Khrushchev. Publicly, the Soviets would dismantle their offensive weapons in Cuba and return them to the Soviet Union, subject to United Nations verification, in exchange for a US public declaration and agreement to not invade Cuba again. Secretly, the United States agreed that it would dismantle all of the Jupiter MRBMs, which had been deployed in Turkey against the Soviet Union."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis
Why only dictatorships?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ocean_Shield
What happens after the missiles are intercepted?
Russia still hasn’t reached Kyiv - 5 hours from the Russian border, how far can they project power beyond their borders ?
No, but the ones oppressed by Russia tend to be.
> And Greeces and Italy are a classic examples of nations making it big under EU cover.
GDP (US$ PPP) per capita (IMF 2021 estimate):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PP...Which of the countries in your list do you think are in the global north, and which are in the global south?
Also, afaik, the demand was not about joining EU, but NATO?
Austria, Finland, Sweden are not part of NATO, and are doing fine.
Plenty of very poor subservient countries in the EU too, just look at how “nicely” they dealt with Greece. Romania and Bulgaria are also roughly as poor as Ukraine, on the PPP basis.
EU comes with some huge strings attached, up to and including loss of sovereignty.
https://www.opindia.com/2022/03/european-union-hits-poland-a...
Ukraine could've just had both sides (NATO and EAEU/Russia) pay for the Ukrainian defence/security, then figure out a side deal with EU, and be part of their economic area and customs union, but not cede sovereignty to EU.
They could've done it. The real question is why that didn't happen, why did they want to cede sovereignty to the EU so bad?
Signing a treaty (which you can later leave) is not a loss of sovereignty, it is an exercise of sovereignty. If you want to be reductionist about it, a country joining NATO would be a loss of sovereignty too, because they would be committing their foreign and military policy to a supranational body.
Similarly, your proposal of Ukraine promising not to join NATO (presumably as a condition in some treaty?) would also be a loss of sovereignty, by that logic, because a truly sovereign nation is entitled to apply for NATO membership whenever it wants to.
EU law primacy is a marked departure away from the standard, in which a ratified treaty must be implemented into national law in other to codify that international obligation into the domestic legal system.
I never understood why would one want to be in the EU, if you can simply be part of the EFTA/EEA and the Schengen area?
"In R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd, the House of Lords ruled that courts in the United Kingdom had the power to "disapply" acts of parliament if they conflicted with EU law. Lord Bridge held that Parliament had voluntarily accepted this limitation of its sovereignty and was fully aware that even if the limitation of sovereignty was not inherent in the Treaty of Rome, it had been well established by jurisprudence before Parliament passed the European Communities Act 1972." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy_of_European_Union_law#...
Lord Bridge held that Parliament had voluntarily accepted this limitation of its sovereignty
Lord Bridge was a British judge, who served as Lord of Appeal in Ordinary between 1980 and 1992. A leading appellate judge, Bridge is also remembered for having presided over the Birmingham Six trial.
Qualified legal experts accept that EU law is a limitation of sovereignty.
What are your legal credentials and experience with the law?
They had hope Putin would steer Russia towards something resembling western democracies… but we have a history of having very poor assets devoted to understanding Russia. We have some who do, but those who have the ear of policymakers really don’t, and again we lack good insider spies.
The untested one is China and who knows what they ll pull later.
Why exactly that cold war relic is still a drain on member nations' budgets, I can't tell.
I’m genuinely curious.
I remain reassured, and indeed confident, in the idea of western civilization.
* China did not anticipate that Russia would launch a full invasion on Ukraine. If it had, it would have pulled Chinese citizens in Ukraine much earlier.
* This quote "and two major Chinese banks, the Bank of China and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, have even refused to help Russia process export transactions." does not prove anything. China has a Kunlun Bank that specializes in dealing with US sanctioned entities so that other banks can work with the US normally.
Sounds dubious that they would risk a partnership leak like that for a few people
> China evacuated the first batch of its citizens from Ukraine on February 28, including over 400 Chinese students from Odessa and 200 from Kiev, four days after militaries from Russia and Ukraine engaged in battle.
[0] - https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/14/politics/us-embassy-kyiv-clos... [1] - https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202203/1254447.shtml
Russia is not Soviet Union, it's far less powerful and so need a partner. EU was their first and best bet, they try many time to offer the olive branch to EU but USA/UK/NATO always manage to stop accepting it, only EU biggest (France, Germany and Italy) have part of gov/business interest since they are not so blind, we are natural partner and needing each others make the partnership on par, while with the USA the partnership is definitively not on par. Anyway, since the west door remain close the other option was China, a historical enemy, but a stable partner that need Russia as much Russia need China. That's is. Since then China was the winner. Russian Far East/Siberia is already "substantially Chinese" without any special geopolitical maneuvering: Russia have not invested enough there, China have done, most local infrastructure are made by China to link China to Far east/Siberia, most locals buy and sell to China, go on holiday in China etc, China do not need more than that: they have full access to natural resources and thanks to the desperation of USA/UK that push the EU away from Russia to being able to still control EU they have secured the partnership for decades to come.
Consider a thing: now Russia probably offer China nuke tech, something they have NEVER ever do before, with China industry and Russian tech and natural resources behind, China can overpower USA in few years. They do not need more than that. What I do not much understand is how desperate USA/UK can be to choose a so suicidal course.
Regarding tech while Russia is not Soviet Union it's still have much of military research and for the little we know is already more effective than the USA since it's development is state-led, not private companies led like most of things in USA. So even if far behind for various aspects is far forward than China in tech terms and China have one of the most developed industrial system to mass produce almost anything.
In moral and cultural aspect we EU Citizens have issues comprehending USA values and duplicity while have had even LESS issues with the Soviet. Morality is always a characteristic of the people to avoid social drifts, not much a government thing but in social terms we are more near Russian population than USA or UK ones, we are far more social than competing, just as an example. Essentially "Russian threat" is no threat for us EU citizens, it's at maximum a threat for the eastern Europe area where they switch from a Russian-led dictatorship to others planted by USA/UK after the cold war and even today many are nostalgic of the Soviet because they are less oppressive that current formal, not substantial, Democracies, just as a fresh example https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1619050/post-social... if you came from US/UK you probably simply never heard of but most nazi-alike and religious extremist that infest the east Europe are made by US/UK to counter the Soviet, do to so they start at the WWII time recycling original nazi and fascist, often letting them do their revenge business against their citizens, for instance while not formally Aldo Moro killing was a USA-made killing to stop Democrazia Cristiana party to reach an agreement with Partito Comunista Italiano, just to cite one. Criminal militia like Gladio where founded by USA and UK government, the same government that have founded nazi and fascist even after the start of WWII. Historical "Operation Unthinkable" and "Operation Dropshot" are other examples of criminal intent against us for the sake of UK and USA, the Soviet or the Russian never do something like that.
Consider that USA and UK government are FAR different from their own people and they are not much more Democratic than China or Russian dictatorship, just smarter, they appear less deadly on their own Citizens than them, they master propaganda very well, but at heart they are the same. For them Citizens are not Citizens but sheep to be kept in like "for their own sake" and of course for the shepherd interests. UE government in that sense are far more moderate and more often than not just puppet regimes. The level of detachments between People and who really command is abysmal these days.
IMVHO absolutely no. It prove to be a reliable and stable partner: they even keep up pumping gas, shipping carbon etc to the EU while under (partial) sanctions. They never close their door, actually the try many time to give EU the olive branch and the EU is forced by USA and UK to refuse, against EU interests...
So no, USA and UK gov prove to be unreliable partners, they want power and they do all the dirty tricks they can to grab and keep it, causing immense amount of suffering and dumping their waste on partner: 2008 subprime crisis? Dumped in EU. Overthrown MENA region dictatorship they once create with resulting mass immigration and civil wars? Against dumped in EU. Afghanistan obvious debacle after they create the talibans to fight URSS? They do not even advise up front their NATO EU partner before they live.
Of course, anyone do their own interest, that's perfectly normal, WWII was very well used by the USA in primis but was an European war at first so we can only blame ourselves for it, however so far lesson must be learnt: USA and UK gov. act for their own interest against their own citizens interest and against anyone else interests. Russian so far have obviously followed their own interests but not harming their partner. Our propaganda try to sell the Ukrainian war as something made by the Russian by surprise but if you just dig the press a very little bit you'll discover that's a complete lie, like Saddam mass-destruction weapons lie. The Ukrainian war initiate before 2014 while NATO expansion finance and arm nazi's in eastern Europe to keep it's expansion they promise they'll never do at Yalta conference after WWII. They form nazi's militias in Ukraine persecuting Russian-speaking population to a point of the Euromaidan genocide. Russians actually IMVHO have made a huge mistake: at that time instead of offering "assistance" and weapons to Russian-speaking Ukrainian they should have impromptu invading the entire Ukraine blitzkrieg-style (a super-expensive but doable risky move) stating a thing: we are here to eradicate nazi's, anyone trying to stop us declare us war, a nuclear war. That's will be risky of course, BUT effective, because at that time NATO haven't had enough propaganda on it's side to justify anything, NATO troops are well in the mud in Afghanistan and Iraq and public opinion can't be convinced that Russia is on the wrong side. They invade to stop a genocide with their official troops, not mercenary crocks, they march with their flag formally, nothing under the wood and with international press aside. A thing they do not learn from us.
Now they just can't keep the situation up so what they should have done in a risky move before they have done slowly and methodically now. But now NATO have had much more time to work on it's own public opinion depicting Russians ad the badass guys and have much more armed Ukrainian nazi's that in the meantime are now in control ALSO on regular Ukrainian army and the outcome of such slow move is a mess.
Honestly if I'm at Putin place I'll have a far harder line: a public discourse at United Nations: NATO thief, the empire of lie (cfr actual Russian propaganda) have to stop now or face a nuclear holocaust and all NATO countries Citizens should decide if they are Democratic and so, people that decide, or subject and so people that obey to they oppressors in chief against their own interest. With a bit of condiments: mass ballistic exercise around all possible borders. However I'm a Democrat witch means I think people can decide if trained and pushed to, Putin is a dictator so he think as NATO countries think that Citizens are not Citizens but flock of sheep to be pastured as the powerful wish. And that's war the real error: the entire '900 teach that yes, if trained to be sheep citizens unfortunately evolve as sheep, easily mastered by...