Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pmc

Major
Registered Member
reservior dogs said:
From the perspective of the U.S., we have an economic reason for them to terminate the Nordstream operation, but more importantly, a geo-political one. Using the Nordstream gas pushes Europe closer to Russia, which is the last thing we need to see happen. Europe is the biggest stake for the U.S.
From the perspective of the EU, Nordstream is very important for their survival. All this green stuff means they won't burn coal or have more nuclear plants. Gas power plants are needed for their industry going forward. U.S. gas is unreliable and very expensive (you have to ship them across the ocean in special tankers). Your charts illustrates the additional danger that we simply don't have the gas to export to EU that they needed. The U.S. already exert undue influence in EU and Biden had not changed the American First policy that was started with Trump. Russia mainly just want the EU to back off from Ukraine etc, so their increased influence from having Nordstream II coming online does not translate into more coercion for EU to cut its own throat in other areas. With the new administration in Germany, we are seeing a call to stop the Nordstream II operation. There is no other way to explain this except that the U.S. is pulling the string.
Click to expand...
Russia want good relations with US but it is EU lobby that is preventing it.
Europe neither has the money nor the technical manpower to maintain current nuclear station let alone built new one on time. Germany knows this at it has to retire the nuclear sooner than later. Europe has wasted its technical manpower on building ever complex and luxurious products like Automobiles, high end fashion, watches, over size Airbus civilian industry, oversize regulatory and financial industry, oversize tourism etc. Chinese made Teslas are exported to Europe not to US. this tell you who feel insecure.
In videos most of Russian military is moving from Siberia. very good indications.
than UAE investment in Sibur-TAIF. that will create further Tatar billionaires. Tatar leaders in Saudi forms. i think it is about who can create real Turkic state.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
taxiya said:
Aren't we talking about who is twisting what Xi said?
Click to expand...
"Core interests" does not means a blank check for everything under the sun.

Context matters, and the context was Xi supporting Putin's demand for ironclad guarantees of no NATO troops in Ukraine (Russia's Core Interest) That is the context of "Core interests", so you can't automatically assume that formal recognition of sovereignty of Crimea by Chinese gov't is included as part of "Core interests".

taxiya said:
A moment ago you care, now you suddenly don't care? Make up your mind, will you?
Click to expand...
"Core interests" in the context of their conversation means no NATO troops in Ukraine (e.g. national security interests, sphere of influence).

"Core interests" does NOT mean that Chinese gov't's formally recognizes Crimean sovereignty as Russia's only. You are deliberately being disingenuous in your interpretation of what "word choices" mean. If China formally recognized Crimean sovereignty as Russia, it would violate it's "strategically ambiguous" strategy regarding Crimean sovereignty between Ukraine/Russia. So it chooses it's word carefully.

Meanwhile, you engage in mental gymnastics to backwards justify your foregone conclusion. As if "China supports Russian Core Interests" is 'no NATO buildup' + 'Crimean is Russian sovereignty'. No, context of the conversation matters, not your mental gymnatics.
 
Last edited:
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Phead128 said:
"Core interests" does not means a blank check for everything under the sun.

Context matters, and the context was Xi supporting Putin's demand for ironclad guarantees of no NATO troops in Ukraine (Russia's Core Interest) That is the context of "Core interests", so you can't automatically assume that formal recognition of sovereignty of Crimea by Chinese gov't is included as part of "Core interests".


"Core interests" in the context of their conversation means no NATO troops in Ukraine (e.g. national security interests, sphere of influence).

"Core interests" does NOT mean that Chinese gov't's formally recognizes Crimean sovereignty as Russia's only. You are deliberately being disingenuous in your interpretation of what "word choices" mean. If China formally recognized Crimean sovereignty as Russia, it would violate it's "strategically ambiguous" strategy regarding Crimean sovereignty between Ukraine/Russia. So it chooses it's word carefully.

Meanwhile, you engage in mental gymnastics to backwards justify your foregone conclusion. As if "China supports Russian Core Interests" is 'no NATO buildup' + 'Crimean is Russian sovereignty'. No, context of the conversation matters, not your mental gymnatics.
Click to expand...
Why do you care the context now? Didn't you just said?
Phead128 said:
Who cares if Foreign Ministry, CCTV, or Xi said it.
Click to expand...
Pretty elastic mind, huh?
 
Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
taxiya said:
Why do you care the context now? Didn't you just said?
Click to expand...
"Core interests" has the same unambiguous meaning referring to Putin's demand for no NATO troops in Ukraine, whether stated by CCTV, Foreign Ministry, or Xi Jinping mouth.

The meaning of "Core interests" is context-dependent, regardless of if it's reported by different sources. Whether it's reported by CCTV, Foreign Ministry, or Xi does not change the context of the term used in the conversation.
taxiya said:
Pretty elastic mind, huh?
Click to expand...
Projection much? You are asserting that "Core Interests" includes a blank check for everything under the sun, so who has an elastic mind?
taxiya said:
Essentially both sides have given each other a blank cheque, it is more than what US has given to its allies.
Click to expand...
Thou shall not accuse others of what thou is guilty of, Mr. elastic definition.
 
Last edited:
Bellum_Romanum

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Phead128 said:
"Core interests" has the same unambiguous meaning referring to Putin's demand for no NATO troops in Ukraine, whether stated by CCTV, Foreign Ministry, or Xi Jinping mouth.

The meaning of "Core interests" is context-dependent, regardless of if it's reported by different sources. Whether it's reported by CCTV, Foreign Ministry, or Xi does not change the context of the term used in the conversation.

Projection much? You are asserting that "Core Interests" includes a blank check for everything under the sun, so who has an elastic mind?

Thou shall not accuse others of what thou is guilty of, Mr. elastic definition.
Click to expand...
Your sceptical views of Russia is it based on pure history, based on your bias against Putin or what's the sources of your consternation if not, your severe distrust towards Russia
 
Phead128

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Bellum_Romanum said:
Your sceptical views of Russia is it based on pure history, based on your bias against Putin or what's the sources of your consternation if not, your severe distrust towards Russia
Click to expand...
China can be friends with Russia, just not formal treaty allies.

It's based on Sino-Soviet Split and Outer Manchuria annexations.

I strongly support "comprehensive strategic partnership" between China and Russia. Just not a formal treaty alliance.
 
S

sheogorath

Major
Registered Member
Phead128 said:
China can be friends with Russia, just not formal treaty allies.

It's based on Sino-Soviet Split and Outer Manchuria annexations.

I strongly support "comprehensive strategic partnership" between China and Russia. Just not a formal treaty alliance.
Click to expand...

With that logic, then Vietnam and Cambodia should distrust China and stay away given they supported a CIA backed mass murderer like Pol Pot against both and would later go to war against Vietnam, all to please Kissinger
 
Last edited:
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
Phead128 said:
"Core interests" has the same unambiguous meaning referring to Putin's demand for no NATO troops in Ukraine, whether stated by CCTV, Foreign Ministry, or Xi Jinping mouth.
Click to expand...
It is only unambiguous to you, not to anybody else. Did Putin just tell you what is in his mind? Who do you think your are?

So firstly you made up that China object "Crimea annexation" out of your own head. Then after being challenged by me "did you read the report?", you switched to "I don't care what Xi said". After being challenged by me again "you don't care, now you care", you switched to "I believe this is Russia's core interest".

It seems that:
  1. You always know what Putin or Xi have in their mind
  2. You keep jumping back and forth.
And this is not "twisting other's word to fit own position", "mind bending", "elastic mind" and "mental gymnastic" that you easily throw around?

To summarize what has been going on:
  1. I said that China and Russia did not say anything specific about what the core interests mean. It is free for everybody (primarily for the west) to guess.
  2. You determined that in both China's position and Putin's mind the core interest of Russia is only about Ukraine. You also determined that China object the so-called "annexation of Crimea".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top