The war in Ukraine is keeping Chinese social media censors busy

Posts that glorify war and those that criticize Russia are getting quietly deleted.


Read the whole story

 

[TheColinous]

I have always had this image of China being a dictatorship like Ankh-Morpork while Russia was more of a dictatorship like Rapture. I'm not sure it's true, but it has seemed so.

In effect, in that simili, China was a rational and thorough evil as run by Vetinari while Russia was more passionately cruel as run by an ideologue desperate to prove they're right. Both have scorpion pits, but Vetinari throws someone into it to make a point while Rapture would throw people into it to cause pain and hurt. I don't know if that even makes sense.

I don't think Putin understands this distinction - that China will only be "understanding" as long as it benefits them, and that they will pragmatically and unemotionally ditch Russia if the benefit calculation changes.

 

[Auie]

In B4 China uses the opportunity to concurrently invade Taiwan. WWIII ho!

 

[Gangsta101]

To paraphrase the legendary Mayor Gulliani, “facts Are in the eye of the beholder." The CCP understands this better than most and controlling the narrative is their specialty. Subtle shifts in direction to reflect the current situation is par for the course.

Everyone knows the above. I bet after living this reality for years, the population there has gotten really good at doublespeak, and the language on social media was evolved to allow people say what they want without running afoul of the state/censors.

 

[Random John Smith Guy]

I have always had this image of China being a dictatorship like Ankh-Morpork while Russia was more of a dictatorship like Rapture. I'm not sure it's true, but it has seemed so.

In effect, in that simili, China was a rational and thorough evil as run by Vetinari while Russia was more passionately cruel as run by an ideologue desperate to prove they're right. Both have scorpion pits, but Vetinari throws someone into it to make a point while Rapture would throw people into it to cause pain and hurt. I don't know if that even makes sense.

I don't think Putin understands this distinction - that China will only be "understanding" as long as it benefits them, and that they will pragmatically and unemotionally ditch Russia if the benefit calculation changes.

You're not wrong, in the broadest sense. At least in the modern, largely Deng-built PRC, though even the Mao-era PRC had certain elements [in particular I find it interesting that the PRC found far more political utility in "rehabilitating" political prisoners rather than just executing them like the USSR, which, while rather creepy in a 1984 sort of way, is undoubtedly much more effective--as well as their attempts to build a quasi-independent judiciary largely to protect themselves from the threat of another Cultural Revolution].


Under Xi things have become more ideologically tinged [really since 2008], but there still remains a strong pragmatic streak within the party. What China does tends to be banal, mundane, and sometimes even subtle [as an Uyghur acquaintance of mine described, most of the stories about the camps; organ sales, etc. are fabrications--which does not make the much more boring truth any less horrifying]. Russia tends to be cruel, capricious, and incompetent--you don't see China running about poisoning people with stuff that's obviously Chinese and then also getting caught due to poor tradecraft.

 

[balthazarr]

China trying (pretty successfully) to control the narrative?

News at 11.

 

[prc117f]

I think its time the US pulls its head out pf chinas ass and starts moving jobs back to the US. Relying on them for manufacturing is a bad long term idea.

 

[TrollForTroll]

All of this is just disgusting. Since Hong Kong our family has been much more actively seeking alternatives to things we need that are commonly made in China. It’s hard, Christmas was hard. Finding Apple Juice not from China is hard.

I’m pretty sure Americans from both political parties (the voters at least) are fed up with this deal. The deal, we transfer money to China for cheaper made goods, so a few American execs in each company can make more money at everyone else’s loss has become a national security risk.

More pressure needs put on China. If they want to play the “both sides fine people game” while a special (invasion war) military operation genocides a country I absolutely would be ok for cutting them off from our tap if they want to keep playing with Russia.

Boycott China. Should boycott American companies that also are showing no signs of adjusting their operations at this point… they’ve had plenty of time to see how evil these countries have become.

Ugh, anger, world has been through so much crap these last few years. We REALLY didn’t need a war, Putin.

 

[Justin Credible]

In B4 China uses the opportunity to concurrently invade Taiwan. WWIII ho!

My tinfoil hat and I always thought that was going to be the case. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia and Taiwan by China at the same time just to throw the US and to a lesser extent the rest of the world off kilter and left not knowing what to do.

 

[numerobis]

In B4 China uses the opportunity to concurrently invade Taiwan. WWIII ho!

My tinfoil hat and I always thought that was going to be the case. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia and Taiwan by China at the same time just to throw the US and to a lesser extent the rest of the world off kilter and left not knowing what to do.

Thankfully China seems to be listening to those who point out this would mean a world war: actual shooting wars in Europe and the pacific.

 

[PhilipStorry]

So you telling us the CCP in /china supports Russia aggression now?

China's reaction has been mixed.

Publicly initial statements supported Ukraine's sovereign rights and call for a mediated peace.
In terms of economic relations, they have been much less supportive of Ukraine and more supportive of Russia - even to the point where they eased import restrictions on wheat, which was seen as propping up the Russian economy.
Diplomatically they abstained from a UN vote for a motion demanding that Russia cease their military activities and withdraw from the Ukraine.

I suspect that initially they felt it could be an interesting test run for handling Taiwan. If Russia had succeeded in a rapid invasion, then China would have a handy template for how the world would react diplomatically and economically to any future actions of theirs.

As the war drags on they've realised that many of Russia's assumptions about how fragmented and weak the international response would be were incorrect. They're also no doubt concerned about how it looks to support a Russian venture that is shelling civilians and nuclear power facilities.

So they seem to have gone rather quiet.

Right now I suspect that they're being intensely lobbied behind the scenes by the USA, EU and Australia/Oceania about their position. And they're hoping that staying out of it is something that they can do - hence censoring both sides in their own media.

 

[Hydrargyrum]

I feel like I only ever see the word “netizen” in articles talking about Chinese internet users.

Maybe in the ‘90s and 2000s it made sense to have a special term for people communicating via the internet, but it’s the default now. Calling them netizens seems a weird and unnecessary distinction to draw, especially since I never see it applied to Westerners posting on Facebook or Twitter (or even a chan or Gab or Truth Social!)

 

[sxotty]

In B4 China uses the opportunity to concurrently invade Taiwan. WWIII ho!

My tinfoil hat and I always thought that was going to be the case. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia and Taiwan by China at the same time just to throw the US and to a lesser extent the rest of the world off kilter and left not knowing what to do.

China will do it if it goes well for Russia. China also wants to wait until fabs are more spread out. Given the concentration of fabs in Taiwan they know it would screw over the whole world so the world would respond. Check back in late 2025 or 2026 when more fans have opened elsewhere.

 

[Nalyd]

Heaven forbid they take the lesson that maybe we’d all be better off if they just acknowledged Taiwan’s independence and sovereignty, and worked to normalize relations.

 

[Happysin]

In B4 China uses the opportunity to concurrently invade Taiwan. WWIII ho!

My tinfoil hat and I always thought that was going to be the case. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia and Taiwan by China at the same time just to throw the US and to a lesser extent the rest of the world off kilter and left not knowing what to do.

Thankfully China seems to be listening to those who point out this would mean a world war: actual shooting wars in Europe and the pacific.

True, though China has been heavily investing in capabilities for force projection and expeditionary forces recently. They're clearly intending on being able to prosecute wars outside borders.

 

[Hydrargyrum]

In my understanding, the link between the invasion of the Ukrain and an invasion of Taiwan is not that the invasion of the Ukraine might serve as a distraction.
Instead, it is serving as a precedent.
The United States has been intimidated by a threat of nuclear attack from sending forces into the Ukraine to repel the Russian invaders as quickly as possible, to bring this destructive war to the quickest possible end and prevent the defeat of the Ukraine.
So this proves the United States is a paper tiger. The United States will not take any risk of a nuclear attack on its territory for any reason whatever. The notion that it will come to the defense of NATO partners like the Baltics is a hollow sham. And, similarly, it will not interfere when China re-integrates Taiwan into itself. That is what Putin and Xi are thinking right now.
And every day when Ukrainian children are dying, but NATO refuses even to set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine, their opinion of the cowardice of the West is confirmed.

Does this mean we should just send NATO troops into Ukraine, regardless of Putin's threats?
Hey, I'd rather not have a global thermonuclear war too.
But we do have to face the fact that we have no good alternative.

What should have happened, of course, was that after the Russian annexation of Crimea, the Ukraine should have been immediately allowed to become a member of NATO. As soon as there was a genuine possibility of its being invaded, the possibility should have been thoroughly and completely foreclosed.
That is the policy failure on the part of the U.S. that led to this crisis.
Now, we face two very unpleasant choices: either take a serious risk of a nuclear war, or watch as the web of U.S. alliances unravels, and Russia and China pick off the world's democracies one by one.

What? NATO providing only substantial material support while not directly participating in the defense of a non-member state, to whom the US has pointedly not offered security guarantees, says absolutely nothing about their willingness to engage with full force in the defence of NATO members.

Now, Taiwan on the other hand… I understand the US has been holding a position of strategic ambiguity there, in order to avoid riling up the PRC any more than necessary and to discourage the Taiwanese government from poking the dragon themselves (especially by unilaterally declaring independence). So perhaps they would forbear defending Taiwan. It’s deliberately hard to say. The US has explicitly terminated the prior mutual defense treaty which would have required them to assist Taiwan.

And make no mistake: setting up a no-fly zone is not a minor action compared to directly joining the fight on Ukraine’s side. If NATO isn’t prepared to shoot down Russian aircraft, which requires deploying air superiority fighters into Ukraine, and destroy Russian anti-air defenses (including the ones on the Russian and Belarusian side of the border!) to keep those air superiority fighters safe, the No-fly zone is a meaningless sternly-worded letter. And how would that be any different from rolling NATO soldiers and tanks into Ukraine to shoot at Russians directly?

 

[panton41]

Spoiler

In my understanding, the link between the invasion of the Ukrain and an invasion of Taiwan is not that the invasion of the Ukraine might serve as a distraction.
Instead, it is serving as a precedent.
The United States has been intimidated by a threat of nuclear attack from sending forces into the Ukraine to repel the Russian invaders as quickly as possible, to bring this destructive war to the quickest possible end and prevent the defeat of the Ukraine.
So this proves the United States is a paper tiger. The United States will not take any risk of a nuclear attack on its territory for any reason whatever. The notion that it will come to the defense of NATO partners like the Baltics is a hollow sham. And, similarly, it will not interfere when China re-integrates Taiwan into itself. That is what Putin and Xi are thinking right now.
And every day when Ukrainian children are dying, but NATO refuses even to set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine, their opinion of the cowardice of the West is confirmed.

Does this mean we should just send NATO troops into Ukraine, regardless of Putin's threats?
Hey, I'd rather not have a global thermonuclear war too.
But we do have to face the fact that we have no good alternative.

What should have happened, of course, was that after the Russian annexation of Crimea, the Ukraine should have been immediately allowed to become a member of NATO. As soon as there was a genuine possibility of its being invaded, the possibility should have been thoroughly and completely foreclosed.
That is the policy failure on the part of the U.S. that led to this crisis.
Now, we face two very unpleasant choices: either take a serious risk of a nuclear war, or watch as the web of U.S. alliances unravels, and Russia and China pick off the world's democracies one by one.

Are you planning on trying to actually spend your rubles, or just stuff bundles of them in your fireplace to burn for heat?

 

[Hydrargyrum]

In my understanding, the link between the invasion of the Ukrain and an invasion of Taiwan is not that the invasion of the Ukraine might serve as a distraction.
Instead, it is serving as a precedent.
The United States has been intimidated by a threat of nuclear attack from sending forces into the Ukraine to repel the Russian invaders as quickly as possible, to bring this destructive war to the quickest possible end and prevent the defeat of the Ukraine.
So this proves the United States is a paper tiger. The United States will not take any risk of a nuclear attack on its territory for any reason whatever. The notion that it will come to the defense of NATO partners like the Baltics is a hollow sham. And, similarly, it will not interfere when China re-integrates Taiwan into itself. That is what Putin and Xi are thinking right now.
And every day when Ukrainian children are dying, but NATO refuses even to set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine, their opinion of the cowardice of the West is confirmed.

Does this mean we should just send NATO troops into Ukraine, regardless of Putin's threats?
Hey, I'd rather not have a global thermonuclear war too.
But we do have to face the fact that we have no good alternative.

What should have happened, of course, was that after the Russian annexation of Crimea, the Ukraine should have been immediately allowed to become a member of NATO. As soon as there was a genuine possibility of its being invaded, the possibility should have been thoroughly and completely foreclosed.
That is the policy failure on the part of the U.S. that led to this crisis.
Now, we face two very unpleasant choices: either take a serious risk of a nuclear war, or watch as the web of U.S. alliances unravels, and Russia and China pick off the world's democracies one by one.

Honestly, my feeling at this point is just get it over with. China, India, Russia, North Korea, etc, etc -- they're all primed for a major war with one global neighbor or another. The question of *IF* it happens isn't really applicable anymore. It's only a matter of *when* now and what sets it off. Because tensions and relations among the various nuclear powers isn't improving. Saber rattling and nationalism is on the rise...and someone is going to overstep eventually. And given our relatively mild response to averting climate disaster, that outcomes is more likely to come sooner than later.

Two for one: the solution for anthropogenic climate change is nuclear winter and massive human depopulation through direct destruction of cities, famine and pestilence?

Not that it would help with the biodiversity loss.

Seems like the Great Filter might be here a few centuries too early for Musk’s efforts to help any.

Still, we’re not in a nuclear war yet. There’s still hope we can find a path out. None of this is going to help our chances of dealing with climate change though, especially if Russia goes full North Korea…

 

[GraphicH]

China - Lawful Evil
Russia - Unlawful Evil

 

[Happysin]

In my understanding, the link between the invasion of the Ukrain and an invasion of Taiwan is not that the invasion of the Ukraine might serve as a distraction.
Instead, it is serving as a precedent.
The United States has been intimidated by a threat of nuclear attack from sending forces into the Ukraine to repel the Russian invaders as quickly as possible, to bring this destructive war to the quickest possible end and prevent the defeat of the Ukraine.
So this proves the United States is a paper tiger. The United States will not take any risk of a nuclear attack on its territory for any reason whatever. The notion that it will come to the defense of NATO partners like the Baltics is a hollow sham. And, similarly, it will not interfere when China re-integrates Taiwan into itself. That is what Putin and Xi are thinking right now.
And every day when Ukrainian children are dying, but NATO refuses even to set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine, their opinion of the cowardice of the West is confirmed.

Does this mean we should just send NATO troops into Ukraine, regardless of Putin's threats?
Hey, I'd rather not have a global thermonuclear war too.
But we do have to face the fact that we have no good alternative.

What should have happened, of course, was that after the Russian annexation of Crimea, the Ukraine should have been immediately allowed to become a member of NATO. As soon as there was a genuine possibility of its being invaded, the possibility should have been thoroughly and completely foreclosed.
That is the policy failure on the part of the U.S. that led to this crisis.
Now, we face two very unpleasant choices: either take a serious risk of a nuclear war, or watch as the web of U.S. alliances unravels, and Russia and China pick off the world's democracies one by one.

What? NATO providing only substantial material support while not directly participating in the defense of a non-member state, to whom the US has pointedly not offered security guarantees, says absolutely nothing about their willingness to engage with full force in the defence of NATO members.

Now, Taiwan on the other hand… I understand the US has been holding a position of strategic ambiguity there, in order to avoid riling up the PRC any more than necessary and to discourage the Taiwanese government from poking the dragon themselves (especially by unilaterally declaring independence). So perhaps they would forbear defending Taiwan. It’s deliberately hard to say. The US has explicitly terminated the prior mutual defense treaty which would have required them to assist Taiwan.

And make no mistake: setting up a no-fly zone is not a minor action compared to directly joining the fight on Ukraine’s side. If NATO isn’t prepared to shoot down Russian aircraft, which requires deploying air superiority fighters into Ukraine, and destroy Russian anti-air defenses (including the ones on the Russian and Belarusian side of the border!) to keep those air superiority fighters safe, the No-fly zone is a meaningless sternly-worded letter. And how would that be any different from rolling NATO soldiers and tanks into Ukraine to shoot at Russians directly?

I think we would be forced to defend Taiwan simply because TSMC is of critical strategic importance, and we don't want China to further their stranglehold on semiconductor manufacturing.

 

[Nalyd]

Honestly, my feeling at this point is just get it over with. Whether we do it now or in 50 years makes no difference. China, India, Russia, North Korea, etc, etc -- they're all primed for a major war with one global neighbor or another. The question of *IF* it happens isn't really applicable anymore. It's only a matter of *when* now and what sets it off. Because tensions and relations among the various nuclear powers isn't improving. Saber rattling and nationalism is on the rise...and someone is going to overstep eventually. And given our relatively mild response to averting climate disaster that will throw all established status quos out the window, that outcome is more likely to come sooner than later.

Yeah! Let’s all get toasty! (But don’t wanna hurt no kangaroos)
https://youtu.be/EqBrw3rQvKo

 

[HarryWinter]

CCP to Americans: Stop your cold war mentality.
CCP to the Chinese: We need one enemy to unite China and blame all our mistakes on, just like North Korea. Let us blame America.

 

[ItchyPoo]

<snip>

What a bunch of drivel. I’m so tired of seeing the US and/or NATO getting blamed for this. Yes, it sucks that Ukraine didn’t do enough to be allowed into NATO. Not to mention the massive corruption, Ukraine president in 2010 cancelled the request to join NATO. Then in 2014 the next president decided to retain the neutral stance. It wasn’t until they were invaded by Russia that NATO started looking pretty damn good. Guess what, that kind of changes the dynamic a bit. Plus, no matter what, joining Nato doesn’t happen over night. Since Russia was literally already there, hard to say how everything would have changed. My guess is Putin would have just fully invaded in 2014. This was putin’s plan from many, many years ago.

Could we all have done more, probably. Could Ukraine have done more, definitely.

Edit: I would also add that the US/NATO not defending a non member is far from paper tiger. Ukraine had no guarantees and NATO will fully defend NATO members. Count on it.

 

[Nalyd]

In my understanding, the link between the invasion of the Ukrain and an invasion of Taiwan is not that the invasion of the Ukraine might serve as a distraction.
Instead, it is serving as a precedent.
The United States has been intimidated by a threat of nuclear attack from sending forces into the Ukraine to repel the Russian invaders as quickly as possible, to bring this destructive war to the quickest possible end and prevent the defeat of the Ukraine.
So this proves the United States is a paper tiger. The United States will not take any risk of a nuclear attack on its territory for any reason whatever. The notion that it will come to the defense of NATO partners like the Baltics is a hollow sham. And, similarly, it will not interfere when China re-integrates Taiwan into itself. That is what Putin and Xi are thinking right now.
And every day when Ukrainian children are dying, but NATO refuses even to set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine, their opinion of the cowardice of the West is confirmed.

Does this mean we should just send NATO troops into Ukraine, regardless of Putin's threats?
Hey, I'd rather not have a global thermonuclear war too.
But we do have to face the fact that we have no good alternative.

What should have happened, of course, was that after the Russian annexation of Crimea, the Ukraine should have been immediately allowed to become a member of NATO. As soon as there was a genuine possibility of its being invaded, the possibility should have been thoroughly and completely foreclosed.
That is the policy failure on the part of the U.S. that led to this crisis.
Now, we face two very unpleasant choices: either take a serious risk of a nuclear war, or watch as the web of U.S. alliances unravels, and Russia and China pick off the world's democracies one by one.

Honestly, my feeling at this point is just get it over with. China, India, Russia, North Korea, etc, etc -- they're all primed for a major war with one global neighbor or another. The question of *IF* it happens isn't really applicable anymore. It's only a matter of *when* now and what sets it off. Because tensions and relations among the various nuclear powers isn't improving. Saber rattling and nationalism is on the rise...and someone is going to overstep eventually. And given our relatively mild response to averting climate disaster, that outcomes is more likely to come sooner than later.

Two for one: the solution for anthropogenic climate change is nuclear winter and massive human depopulation through direct destruction of cities, famine and pestilence?

Not that it would help with the biodiversity loss.

Seems like the Great Filter might be here a few centuries too early for Musk’s efforts to help any.

Still, we’re not in a nuclear war yet. There’s still hope we can find a path out. None of this is going to help our chances of dealing with climate change though, especially if Russia goes full North Korea…

A fool's hope, maybe. As I said, the conditions leading humanity *away* from another major war aren't happening. It's the opposite, in fact. Is there a possibility that cooler heads prevail? Maybe. For now. But that's only going to last so long while climates (and everything dependent on them) continues to deteriorate.

It might blow up in 20 years so might as well blow it up now is the stupidest goddam take I’ve seen on this so far.

 

[J.King]

Honestly, my feeling at this point is just get it over with. Whether we do it now or in 50 years makes no difference. China, India, Russia, North Korea, etc, etc -- they're all primed for a major war with one global neighbor or another. The question of *IF* it happens isn't really applicable anymore. It's only a matter of *when* now and what sets it off.

That seems to me a conclusion difficult to support. The northern hemisphere teetered on the brick of war for most of four decades in the late 20th Century. It probably seemed like just a matter of when for a lot of people, then, too. Fortunately lots of people worked to preserve peace, and it's allowed generations of people to grow up in many places having no experience of war. That's a major win, and absolutely makes a difference.

 

[PhilipStorry]

Now, we face two very unpleasant choices: either take a serious risk of a nuclear war, or watch as the web of U.S. alliances unravels, and Russia and China pick off the world's democracies one by one.

I wouldn't normally reply to such a misinformed post, but I feel that I should simply to clarify one thing: There is not a big risk of nuclear war.

(And if I'm wrong I should point out that I live in London, so I will have bigger problems than being embarrassed about this post!)

Yes, the risk has increased slightly, but I feel we should be faithful that humanity will prevail. I say this because the facts show that we have always prevailed before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... lose_calls

A lot of the items on that list are systemic technology or policy failures - and each time people were cautious enough that they didn't simply and mindlessly react like robots. They sought confirmation before committing.

That list contains a number of named and unnamed brave, decent individuals who either disagreed with the idea of using nuclear weapons despite being in a desperate situation (such as Vasily Arkhipov), or refused to believe that their opponents would be so dumb (Stanislav Petrov) and argued that there was a technical fault, not a war starting.

Have you ever seen the film Wargames? At the end, where Joshua - having learned that Tic Tac Toe cannot be won - starts going through every single nuclear scenario it knows, and finds that none of them can be won? That's a great explainer of the realities of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Changing the targeting of ballistic missiles takes time. The doctrine of every country with them tends to be "launch everything as a response". Even if they do take the time to only launch missiles targeted at one country, any single stray missile launched at another country will probably create a massive response. So one launch becomes all launching. That's why we call it Mutually Assured Destruction...

The people handling these systems day to day are decent, dutiful people. They know this principle. They know any single launch will be bad for their countrymen. They are no more monsters than you or I, and history has shown that repeatedly.

If nukes are used in this conflict, they will be tactical battlefield nukes. And even then, that may not happen. The Russian leadership might grow hungry to use them, but the Generals know what it means for their troops and countrymen in the long term. Any order to use them is as likely to result in a military coup that deposes the leadership as it is the actual use of the weapons.

The nuclear threat is therefore overstated, a scare tactic to get eyeballs onto TV news channels and websites. The risk has ticked up ever so slightly, but not that much.

I recommend everyone spend a little while going down the wikihole that page of close calls provides, whilst constantly reminding themselves that we've had nuclear weapons for decades and have had plenty of opportunities to nuke ourselves, yet it hasn't happened.

It's a depressing subject, but it also shows that there is still hope for humanity.

 

[numerobis]

In B4 China uses the opportunity to concurrently invade Taiwan. WWIII ho!

My tinfoil hat and I always thought that was going to be the case. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia and Taiwan by China at the same time just to throw the US and to a lesser extent the rest of the world off kilter and left not knowing what to do.

Thankfully China seems to be listening to those who point out this would mean a world war: actual shooting wars in Europe and the pacific.

True, though China has been heavily investing in capabilities for force projection and expeditionary forces recently. They're clearly intending on being able to prosecute wars outside borders.

They’ve been waiting since 1949, what’s another decade? China after Mao has shown itself to be relentless but patient. That could of course change at any point.

 

[mhalpern]

I have always had this image of China being a dictatorship like Ankh-Morpork while Russia was more of a dictatorship like Rapture. I'm not sure it's true, but it has seemed so.

In effect, in that simili, China was a rational and thorough evil as run by Vetinari while Russia was more passionately cruel as run by an ideologue desperate to prove they're right. Both have scorpion pits, but Vetinari throws someone into it to make a point while Rapture would throw people into it to cause pain and hurt. I don't know if that even makes sense.

I don't think Putin understands this distinction - that China will only be "understanding" as long as it benefits them, and that they will pragmatically and unemotionally ditch Russia if the benefit calculation changes.

The Russian government is an organized crime syndicate that took over military and civil services, China is a more classical and structured organization. China is well aware trade, and a diverse economy are keys to power, and while they may be ideologically opposed to a lot of Western countries, they aren't economically opposed and don't want to be, they know that what happens within their own borders while may aggravate the West, ultimately won't invite meaningful action because it's a domestic issue. Russia meanwhile is built on mostly energy exports and other extractive resources, being simple products, they are extra vulnerable to alternative supplies cropping up and eating into their business, this is likely the primary reason for all actions against Ukraine, China meanwhile has taken extra effort to become one of the world's main manufacturing hubs and handle things like REE refining that are expensive to do elsewhere due to environmental controls.

 

[Statistical]

<snip>

What a bunch of drivel. I’m so tired of seeing the US and/or NATO getting blamed for this. Yes, it sucks that Ukraine didn’t do enough to be allowed into NATO. Not to mention the massive corruption, Ukraine president in 2010 cancelled the request to join NATO. Then in 2014 the next president decided to retain the neutral stance. It wasn’t until they were invaded by Russia that NATO started looking pretty damn good. Guess what, that kind of changes the dynamic a bit. Plus, no matter what, joining Nato doesn’t happen over night. Since Russia was literally already there, hard to say how everything would have changed. My guess is Putin would have just fully invaded in 2014. This was putin’s plan from many, many years ago.

Could we all have done more, probably. Could Ukraine have done more, definitely.

Edit: I would also add that the US/NATO not defending a non member is far from paper tiger. Ukraine had no guarantees and NATO will fully defend NATO members. Count on it.

It gets extra challenging post Crimea as to join NATO ukraine needs to ensure it has no internal civil conflicts (donbas) or border disputes (crimea).

Short of donbas separatists laying down arms and Russia pulling out of Crimea any NATO ascension would require Ukraine to permanently give up claims to those territories. Not a small order. Even if it is the least bad option it is going to be hard to convince the people and get a high level of support in the government.

Sadly the best time for Ukraine to join NATO would have been in early 2000s when the Baltics did while Russia was weak and dealing with internal issues. Ukraine never believed Russia would invade. Unlike the Baltic states they had a closer relationship both ethnically and culturally with Russia. When the Soviet Union fell the Baltics states sprinted into NATO and western europe politically/economically and never looked back. They knew this day would come again and did everything possible to ensure they were behind the shield of NATO when it did. Ukraine spent 30 years drifting from being Russia leaning to European leaning without much consistency or conviction. That was a fatal mistake. Unlike Finland they lack the economic, military power, and political stability to pull off the tricky balance of being "neutral".

Hell two weeks before the invasion only 20% of Ukrainians believed Russia would invade. The idea of Russia engaged in a large conflict killing Ukranians just seemed impossible. The President of Ukraine was saying the US was overstating things and inflaming the situation. US Intelligence was flawless not just that invasion but when, how, and the scope (Ukraine proper not just the separatist regions).

If Ukraine manages to force Russia to the negotiating table and push Russian troops out of Ukraine proper there might be a way forward but I am not sure either Ukraine or the US has the conviction for what would need to come next.

 

[orangpelupa]

China - Lawful Evil
Russia - Unlawful Evil

Not sure I can categorize China as lawful evil...

 

[mhalpern]

In B4 China uses the opportunity to concurrently invade Taiwan. WWIII ho!

My tinfoil hat and I always thought that was going to be the case. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia and Taiwan by China at the same time just to throw the US and to a lesser extent the rest of the world off kilter and left not knowing what to do.

Thankfully China seems to be listening to those who point out this would mean a world war: actual shooting wars in Europe and the pacific.

True, though China has been heavily investing in capabilities for force projection and expeditionary forces recently. They're clearly intending on being able to prosecute wars outside borders.

Certainly, but with their economic goals, they are more likely to fight them as proxy wars, and avoid appearing as an obvious aggressor, this fits with the particular hardware that they are investing in.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

What should have happened, of course, was that after the Russian annexation of Crimea, the Ukraine should have been immediately allowed to become a member of NATO.

That literally can't happen. Nations can't become NATO members unless they have no outstanding border disputes (otherwise being granted membership would instantly trigger Article 5 mutual defense responsibilities). Ukraine still claims the peninsula as their territory and few have recognized Russia's annexation.
This could be one facet of a deliberate attempt on Putin's part to keep Ukraine out of NATO by manufacturing a border dispute, but those are the rules. To make Ukraine a member we'd have to throw all the rules out the window and then we'd instantly be committed to a shooting war with Russia. A shooting war between nuclear powers directly, not via proxies as in Korea and Vietnam.

Now, we face two very unpleasant choices: either take a serious risk of a nuclear war, or watch as the web of U.S. alliances unravels, and Russia and China pick off the world's democracies one by one.

What unraveling? More nations are looking to join NATO now, not fewer. NATO membership pretty much ensures Russia won't invade you. Ask the NATO-member former Warsaw Pact countries.