I fear Europe is going to repeat the failures of WW2 thinking they can appease a dictator. If China is truly going to start supplying mass amounts of drones to Russia, it will result in a collapse of Ukraine, and an eventual Russian push even further west. Or full-blown WW3.
> And what do you recommend? Start ww3 before Russia does?
I'm not sure if you noticed that Russia already started WW3 if it's path of escalation doesn't stop with a clear defeat of its invasion of Ukraine.
Even their talking heads have been openly talking about WW3 for over a year. They have been threatening the Baltics with an annexation and pretty much the entire western Europe with nuclear annihilation.
They aren't exactly shy in voicing their plans, where they were counting in their 3-day invasion of Ukraine to be the catalyst for western Europe in particular and NATO in general to simply fold and accept the annexation by Russia of countries right up to Poland.
If you were a historian in a century from now, how would you describe Russia's antics?
One of the key propaganda pieces of Russia in this war is how "the west" is forcing Ukrainians to die by giving them the necessary means to resist and oppose Russia's invasion and genocide of Ukraine. Flipping this over, it reads as if they know the strategy of de escalation followed by "the west" is to turn Russia's 3-day invasion into a long drawn-out unsustainable war of attrition, designed to decimate Russia's armed forces and eliminate their ability to even consider the prospects of a war of aggression in decades to come. In the meantime, Europe is also ramping up it's defense sector just in case Ukraine doesn't hold.
Wasn't there something going on in Ukraine in 2014?
I remember a certain leaked phone call[0] suggesting heavy US involvement in the country after the change in government happened rather abruptly[1] and by looking closely at what happened during the escalation of violence during the Maidan protests[2], it leaves a different impression than what I can read in most newspapers.
Nuland and Pyatt are not talking about replacing Yanukovych as president, they are referring to who would become prime minister.
How do we know this? Well, for one thing, on Feb. 21st, 2014, the U.S. and E.U. managed to broker a deal between Yanukovych and the opposition (one which Yanukovych himself advanced) in which Yanukovych would continue as president (alongside a new prime minister chosen from the opposition) until new elections were held in December, a full ten months from that point.
The deal never came into effect. Why? Because immediately after signing, Yanukovych hightailed out of Kyiv.
It's likely not the Chinese government. It's likely some commercial PRC company that's not likely even part of PLA procurement chain trying to war profiteer / make a buck. IMO "allegation" goal to reporting is to pressure PRC to limit non government/PLA commercial activities that could assist RU. You can go through some of Cobtech (drone maker) catalogue here (https://beijingcbtoptics.en.alibaba.com/), I've never seen any of their stuff in formal PLA aquisitions (which I follow closely). They look to be some generic imaging/optics company that sold OEM commercial products, for civilian use until they started making bank during UKR war and thought it was profitable idea to expand into cloning shaheds after realizing it would be pretty trivial to put together a shahed tier drone with PRC supply chains (which Shahed already uses). US sanctions said company, now said company is likely going to start selling to RU who just became biggest customer.
Western MSM try to spin it as "China" formally assisting RU, but it's just PRC not inhibiting commercial activities even if it fuels RU war machine, because PRC producers aren't going to not profit when everyone else is. Especially if RU was paying comical 200k-300k for for a 10k drone made in Iran that PRC can probably make for 5k. TBH this reads as a company much less sophisticated than DJI getting into the much more technologically accessible ghetto drone powered by moped category. They probably planned to sell a bunch of non-lethal airframes, which RU would then fit with warheads because realistically the only use for a 8ft prop drone with 2000km range is to bomb stuff. Much harder to argue for dual use unlike machine tools or small DJI drones. Along with company selling range of optics, which they can at least dodge by saying it was for sports hunting / recreational / civlian use. But no one hunts deer with a 2000km loitering munition.
If PRC/PLA wanted to help RU, they'd just send over formally inducted PLA hardware/suprlus from official MIC manufacturers, which they would probably love to have validated on the battlefield.
> China is primarily after the money, because thousands of Chinese drones are also used by Ukraine, the small FPV ones.
I don't think so. China has not been shy in setting paralels between Ukraine and Taiwan, and how they are using not only to position political pieces but also to develop military tactics based on what western weapons are deployed in Ukraine.
Drone is Sunflower 200, aka improved Shahed136 clone, shown late last year, from Cobtech Ltd aka Beijing Zongshang Dingsheng who got sanctioned by US BIS at end of May. Lighter frame, can be vertically launched without rocket assistence basically anywhere. No sign of UKR battlefield use until then, at least no lethal models (ISR variants exist), but post sanctions they're likely going to start selling to RU now. Curious to see price points / scale of how much PRC industry can churn out improved Shaheds. Probably less than the 10k USD it cost for Iran. Would be verified game changer if 2nd/3rd rate PRC MIC company can spam 4-5 digits of 2500km (basically all of 1st island chain) moped piston drones per month.
This is a obscure to me but people like Finkelstein and Chomsky point out the aftermath of WWII, where Russia was excluded by the other Western countries from the spoils of war and so forth, was a critical juncture that set back Russia's normal development. I don't know the details but it's an important question to ask, because much of the foundational disagreements between people with different political views on this (as you can see in this thread) depend on what one thinks is the historical context, which side was more the underdog, and who has power today, etc.
> This is a obscure to me but people like Finkelstein and Chomsky point out the aftermath of WWII, where Russia was excluded by the other Western countries from the spoils of war and so forth, was a critical juncture that set back Russia's normal development.
Facts like the Berlin blockade refute this hypothesis.
The problem with these anti-west talking heads is that they base their beliefs on this idea of infantilizing each and every antagonist of "the west" whereas "the west" is bounded to a behavior akin to sainthood where all issues are due to not enough penance and self-sacrifice. I mean, the Soviet Union right after WW2 was engaged relentlessly in decades of imperialism targeting east Europe and involved in ethnic cleansing and genocide, with tanks rolling in randomly, and the conclusion of these anti-west talking heads is that "the west" wasn't being cozy enough?
It is perfectly fair to say that 1st-world countries ought to act morally and generously on a finite planet, and held to that standard because of their privileged technology and affluence.
For some reason your values distorts that fairness into some perceived impossible thing that the West cannot afford to do. You are free to believe that, I believe it is small and narrow-minded, a legacy of racist jingoism.
As for the Soviet Union, sure, they were probably acting imperialist too (just as China treats HK, Taiwan, and its neighboring territories today, etc.), but that does not excuse the West's treatment toward their eastern neighbor(s).
No amount of wikipedia reading will fix such simple prejudices. Also, I'm getting old and I do not tolerate basic college-level logical failures to reason, using those various ad hominems in your comment.
35 comments
[ 4.6 ms ] story [ 79.0 ms ] threadI'm not sure if you noticed that Russia already started WW3 if it's path of escalation doesn't stop with a clear defeat of its invasion of Ukraine.
Even their talking heads have been openly talking about WW3 for over a year. They have been threatening the Baltics with an annexation and pretty much the entire western Europe with nuclear annihilation.
They aren't exactly shy in voicing their plans, where they were counting in their 3-day invasion of Ukraine to be the catalyst for western Europe in particular and NATO in general to simply fold and accept the annexation by Russia of countries right up to Poland.
If you were a historian in a century from now, how would you describe Russia's antics?
One of the key propaganda pieces of Russia in this war is how "the west" is forcing Ukrainians to die by giving them the necessary means to resist and oppose Russia's invasion and genocide of Ukraine. Flipping this over, it reads as if they know the strategy of de escalation followed by "the west" is to turn Russia's 3-day invasion into a long drawn-out unsustainable war of attrition, designed to decimate Russia's armed forces and eliminate their ability to even consider the prospects of a war of aggression in decades to come. In the meantime, Europe is also ramping up it's defense sector just in case Ukraine doesn't hold.
I remember a certain leaked phone call[0] suggesting heavy US involvement in the country after the change in government happened rather abruptly[1] and by looking closely at what happened during the escalation of violence during the Maidan protests[2], it leaves a different impression than what I can read in most newspapers.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoW75J5bnnE [1] https://www.voltairenet.org/article182308.html#nh1 [2] https://consortiumnews.com/2019/04/22/the-buried-maidan-mass...
Nuland and Pyatt are not talking about replacing Yanukovych as president, they are referring to who would become prime minister.
How do we know this? Well, for one thing, on Feb. 21st, 2014, the U.S. and E.U. managed to broker a deal between Yanukovych and the opposition (one which Yanukovych himself advanced) in which Yanukovych would continue as president (alongside a new prime minister chosen from the opposition) until new elections were held in December, a full ten months from that point. The deal never came into effect. Why? Because immediately after signing, Yanukovych hightailed out of Kyiv.
[0] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1761873996675682423.html
[1] https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1573307576959512576.html
(be warned author uses pejorative language, which is a shame)
Yes, Russia's invasion in 2014.
https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/05/a-treatment-...
Western MSM try to spin it as "China" formally assisting RU, but it's just PRC not inhibiting commercial activities even if it fuels RU war machine, because PRC producers aren't going to not profit when everyone else is. Especially if RU was paying comical 200k-300k for for a 10k drone made in Iran that PRC can probably make for 5k. TBH this reads as a company much less sophisticated than DJI getting into the much more technologically accessible ghetto drone powered by moped category. They probably planned to sell a bunch of non-lethal airframes, which RU would then fit with warheads because realistically the only use for a 8ft prop drone with 2000km range is to bomb stuff. Much harder to argue for dual use unlike machine tools or small DJI drones. Along with company selling range of optics, which they can at least dodge by saying it was for sports hunting / recreational / civlian use. But no one hunts deer with a 2000km loitering munition.
If PRC/PLA wanted to help RU, they'd just send over formally inducted PLA hardware/suprlus from official MIC manufacturers, which they would probably love to have validated on the battlefield.
I don't think so. China has not been shy in setting paralels between Ukraine and Taiwan, and how they are using not only to position political pieces but also to develop military tactics based on what western weapons are deployed in Ukraine.
Facts like the Berlin blockade refute this hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Blockade
The problem with these anti-west talking heads is that they base their beliefs on this idea of infantilizing each and every antagonist of "the west" whereas "the west" is bounded to a behavior akin to sainthood where all issues are due to not enough penance and self-sacrifice. I mean, the Soviet Union right after WW2 was engaged relentlessly in decades of imperialism targeting east Europe and involved in ethnic cleansing and genocide, with tanks rolling in randomly, and the conclusion of these anti-west talking heads is that "the west" wasn't being cozy enough?
For some reason your values distorts that fairness into some perceived impossible thing that the West cannot afford to do. You are free to believe that, I believe it is small and narrow-minded, a legacy of racist jingoism.
As for the Soviet Union, sure, they were probably acting imperialist too (just as China treats HK, Taiwan, and its neighboring territories today, etc.), but that does not excuse the West's treatment toward their eastern neighbor(s).
No amount of wikipedia reading will fix such simple prejudices. Also, I'm getting old and I do not tolerate basic college-level logical failures to reason, using those various ad hominems in your comment.