Ukrainian War Developments

[Maikeru]

Why would an article a Chinese person wrote need to be translated into Chinese?

Perhaps it was translated from Chinese to English? Just a thought.

Also perhaps you could check out the article's author because, on the face of it, he would appear to have rather more insight and influence on the thinking of the top levels of CPC than you do:

"Hu Wei is the vice-chairman of the Public Policy Research Center of the Counselor’s Office of the State Council, the chairman of Shanghai Public Policy Research Association, the chairman of the Academic Committee of the Chahar Institute, a professor, and a doctoral supervisor."

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

This analysis is truly awful, not least of all in the simply laughable notion that, by abandoning Russia, China would dampen the anti-China shift in the USA and elsewhere. What does the author imagine is driving current USA-China dynamics? It is certainly not the "democracy vs. autocracy" framework that is fed to the western masses and is apparently reproduced in the author's argument. It is fundamentally about the threat that the rise of China poses to American hegemony, a threat that would exist irrespective of China's form of government and irrespective of its relations with other nations. There are meaningful nuances within this dynamic, and within these nuances lie the prospects for war and peace, prosperity and suffering, but the basic dynamic of increasing tension can only be resolved by winding the clock back on generations of Chinese progress.

What is the worst-case scenario for China in this crisis? It is a collapse of the current Russian regime and its replacement with a US puppet regime that will complete the encirclement of China. China's efforts must be directed to avoiding such an outcome, which in practice means mitigating against the collapse of the present regime. That does not mean unconditional support for Russia, it does not mean that China cannot play a "constructive" role in managing the present crisis, nor does it mean that China has an interest in Putin, specifically, surviving, but it certainly means that China should not "stab Russia in the back".

EDIT: It if were actually true that, by "stabbing Russia in the back", China could significantly defuse escalating tensions with the USA even if only temporarily (say, for the next 15 years) and roll back unwelcome developments such as the "Quad", restrictions on technology imports/exports/etc. then China's path would be clear: stab Russia in the back. But the notion is simply ludicrous. The world does not work that way. At best, the enemy of my enemy is tolerated until I can get around to stabbing them in the back as well.

Also a verbal promise isn't enough. Let's say they promise rollbacks of tech sanctions. Fine.

There has to be EUV machines actually physically present, installed and proven to be producing, all at their expense as compensation for lost revenue. There has to be actual legal transfers of IP. If they say that they can't do this because they're all private companies, fine - use the subsidy funds from the infrastructure bill, put it into a special account, and use that, since that money was destined for private companies anyways.

They also need to guarantee market share for Chinese semiconductors, guarantee market share for Chinese semiconductor equipment companies, guarantee a supply of engines for C919 with a joint venture,

And then, and only then, can a verbal condemnation happen.

They can offer more for more response. But here's the issue - what are commercial interests worth vs. national security? They can make that decision themselves.

 

[sheogorath]

The Copium Zone

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[taxiya]

Perhaps it was translated from Chinese to English? Just a thought.

Also perhaps you could check out the article's author because, on the face of it, he would appear to have rather more insight and influence on the thinking of the top levels of CPC than you do:

"Hu Wei is the vice-chairman of the Public Policy Research Center of the Counselor’s Office of the State Council, the chairman of Shanghai Public Policy Research Association, the chairman of the Academic Committee of the Chahar Institute, a professor, and a doctoral supervisor."

You are assuming that the real "Hu Wei" actually wrote that article posted by the web site.
DID HE really?

I can write something saying that Antony Blinken is negotiating with Lavrov to sell off Ukraine and post it on my own web site, then have some of my friends to spread it. You may not believe me, but do you believe Antony Blinken?

 

[Richard Santos]

The primary support china needs in the next 10 years is for Russia to extend her nuclear umbrella to cover china in case of conflict over taiwan. This Russia is unlikely to do in any circumstances short of a simultaneous NATO attack on russia, which is also unlikely. In Everything else Russia is not positioned or capable of positing herself to render decisive assistance to China at china’s point of greatest strategic vulnerability. So Chinese assistance to russia must be calibrated with the limitation of the value of realistic Russian reciprocity in mind.

As to get involved in european affairs, the point is never to get involved for the sake of getting involved. The point of china getting involved in european affairs is to maneuver herself into a position where many european country will need chinese corporation to achieve ends important to them, and the end’s importance is enough such it can’t be abandoned under US pressure.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Perhaps it was translated from Chinese to English? Just a thought.

Also perhaps you could check out the article's author because, on the face of it, he would appear to have rather more insight and influence on the thinking of the top levels of CPC than you do:

"Hu Wei is the vice-chairman of the Public Policy Research Center of the Counselor’s Office of the State Council, the chairman of Shanghai Public Policy Research Association, the chairman of the Academic Committee of the Chahar Institute, a professor, and a doctoral supervisor."

ok then just show me the original paper =)

because I looked up “胡伟 普京” and only got results from RFA, RFI, Taiwanese websites, etc. funny enough who have been proven wrong multiple times. Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus.

BTW, Hu Wei's think tank in Chinese is: 国务院参事室公共政策研究中心. This think tank is not responsible for foreign affairs, it's for internal public policy.

Foreign affairs falls under 国务院参事室国际战略研究中心 (International Strategic Affairs Research Center of the Counselor's office of the State Council)

Read more about that here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[SampanViking]

Very obviously and in large part because of the relentless barrage from Western Media, everybody has been fixated on the performance of the Russian military and how it has not performed as well as expected.
Virtually nothing however has been said (bar plucky Ukrainian resistance pokes the Nose of the Russian Bear) of the performance of the Ukrainian military especially at the top strategic level.
Mainly because there is not much to discuss?

It really does seem that the Ukrainian side has been more interested in promoting sound bites than actual sound strategy.
I question if any thought above the tactical level has really been made at all?

All there seems to be is a stubborn reluctance to abandon any territory at all, especially in the Donbas where a massive entrenched army of some 60,000 are encircled in the North Donbas and Mariupol. Other units have found themselves under siege in other major Eastern Cities. All of these forces; the bulk and best of the Ukrainian army, are trapped and face total destruction.

The point here is that Russia's objective in destroying the Ukrainian Army was made explicit at outset and the build up to the Invasion long and clearly identified. Why then did not the Ukrainian army make plans in the light of this reality.

The plan (hardly a strategy) to cling to every inch is obviously going to fail. The Ukraine is going to lose the territory and the troops trapped within it. It seems so much more sensible to have fallen back to the best and obvious defensive line they had, which is the Dnieper River and Kiev. Yes it would have meant conceding territory, but would have saved the army, and this would have given them some negotiating power, when the time for talking finally arrives.

 

[Abominable]

Perhaps it was translated from Chinese to English? Just a thought.

Also perhaps you could check out the article's author because, on the face of it, he would appear to have rather more insight and influence on the thinking of the top levels of CPC than you do:

"Hu Wei is the vice-chairman of the Public Policy Research Center of the Counselor’s Office of the State Council, the chairman of Shanghai Public Policy Research Association, the chairman of the Academic Committee of the Chahar Institute, a professor, and a doctoral supervisor."

You do realise that the CPC isn't some clandestine organisation controlled by billionaires and foreign interests that needs westerners with international politics degrees to understand?

Maybe start by looking at what the acronym CPC stands for.

 

[Richard Santos]

no one ever thought the Ukrainian military was much more than a militia caliber force with too much mostly outdated equipment.

No one had much expectation of ukrainian military providing mesningful assistance, nor fear ukrainian military might invade, so no one really care much about exactly how well they performed, other than as a source of cynical or childish amusement that by bleeding copiously, the ukraian military also made the russians bleed.

 

[Bellum_Romanum]

Maikeru is just like that other turk here who was banned.
An Ukrop propagandist.

Nope. He was and still can be reasonable only if the topics discussed where the West a.k.a. Team America still have a relative advantage. But if and when the shoes is on the other foot a.k.a. war, invasion, bombings happened to take place in a place considered by the "world" a.k.a. Team America and Europe, his common sense, logic, and all rational thinking are thrown out the window and are replaced by a universal value called: Nationalism, nativism, tribalism etc..

Which goes to show how hollow their so-called rules based order truly is and that much of the real world (Global South) have been exposed to the west's persistent colonialist mindset that has never gone away. It was simply replaced by "Democracy, Human Rights," and all the b.s. they love to tell themselves at night before going to bed.