Calling someone "the epitome of integrity and bravery" is a little more than providing a soft landing. I'm glad he's safe and has changed his views to align more with what's actually happening. There's no need to go crazy with it.
I never viewed Pointman as an Putin or government apologist. I basically took his posts as a journalistic view of what's happening on the inside.
Calling someone "the epitome of integrity and bravery" is a little more than providing a soft landing. I'm glad he's safe and has changed his views to align more with what's actually happening. There's no need to go crazy with it.
I’m glad you liked it, a little crazy shines a light on it.
I think is point was places like Donbas, Crimea and Taiwan are part of a sovereign Russia and China and have been influenced by the west/NATO. My take away is they can’t condemn Russia because they would like to do the same to Taiwan
There is a comment early on something along the lines of Russia and China not being whole nations yet
He specifically said "clearly this is a violation of sovereignty of one country by another" in referring to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
He also refers to the activities in the war in Ukraine as atrocities, he says China is using more subtle language but has made its position clear about violations of sovereignty and disagreeing with this invasion, and on the topic of spheres of influence, he uses that to explain Putin's thinking but clearly says "this of course doesn't mean he's right". He also said "This war is not in China's interest. If it could stop immediately we would be most happy".
Then, on Taiwan he said "China has never laid down a timetable for reunification with Taiwan", that "we want peaceful reunification, because of course that is in our own interest. What is the use of a Taiwan that is totally battered and shattered?" and "People should not doubt our commitment to peaceful reunification".
If your takeaway is "his point is Donbas and Crimea are part of Russia" and "China wants to do the same to Taiwan", that's not derived from what he said.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
He specifically said "clearly this is a violation of sovereignty of one country by another" in referring to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
He also refers to the activities in the war in Ukraine as atrocities, he says China is using more subtle language but has made its position clear about violations of sovereignty and disagreeing with this invasion, and on the topic of spheres of influence, he uses that to explain Putin's thinking but clearly says "this of course doesn't mean he's right". He also said "This war is not in China's interest. If it could stop immediately we would be most happy".
Then, on Taiwan he said "China has never laid down a timetable for reunification with Taiwan", that "we want peaceful reunification, because of course that is in our own interest. What is the use of a Taiwan that is totally battered and shattered?" and "People should not doubt our commitment to peaceful reunification".
If your takeaway is "his point is Donbas and Crimea are part of Russia" and "China wants to do the same to Taiwan", that's not derived from what he said.
The problem for China is they can't condemn Russia for doing what China has already done, and has further aspirations for, without looking like giant hypocrites and painting themselves into a corner. They also can't openly support Russia, for the same reasons. So they put out this wishy washy non-position stuff in an attempt to deflect. It's why it is so hard for anyone to tease out exactly where China stands from interviews like this. That's exactly the intention.
But I think China's position is pretty obvious. Let Russia do this, gently support them, and hope for international weariness and wavering support, or catastrophic results for the west, so China has safer ground to operate on the future. Plus they get access to dirt cheap energy, which they really need, and an under-served market for goods, so that's nice for them. They would just wish we'd all let them do it quietly.
The problem for China is they can't condemn Russia for doing what China has already done, and has further aspirations for, without looking like giant hypocrites and painting themselves into a corner. They also can't openly support Russia, for the same reasons. So they put out this wishy washy non-position stuff in an attempt to deflect. It's why it is so hard for anyone to tease out exactly where China stands from interviews like this. That's exactly the intention.
But I think China's position is pretty obvious. Let Russia do this, gently support them, and hope for international weariness and wavering support, or catastrophic results for the west, so China has safer ground to operate on the future. Plus they get access to dirt cheap energy, which they really need, and an under-served market for goods, so that's nice for them. They would just wish we'd all let them do it quietly.
oh they can, I mean the US is condemning Russia for something the US routinely does, invading weaker countries for some spurious reason, just exchange 'nazi' for 'islamofacist'
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
oh they can, I mean the US is condemning Russia for something the US routinely does, invading weaker countries for some spurious reason, just exchange 'nazi' for 'islamofacist'
The US typically installs someone friendly though(or attempts to). Russia tried that with Ukraine, it failed, so they went to just taking it. Which is what China does. When was the last time the US actually invaded a place and took territory? This isn't to excuse the US's foreign operations, just that they are a bit different, and I think stealing land (or whole countries) is more egregious.
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
The US typically installs someone friendly though(or attempts to). Russia tried that with Ukraine, it failed, so they went to just taking it. Which is what China does. When was the last time the US actually invaded a place and took territory? This isn't to excuse the US's foreign operations, just that they are a bit different, and I think stealing land (or whole countries) is more egregious.
Also, when your plan doesn't work, just terror bombing civilians.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
On the sanctions side of the war against Russia, interesting DW interview of Yale economics researchers saying the Russian economy is in shambles and all the numbers published recently by the Russians and republished by the IMF are false.
He specifically said "clearly this is a violation of sovereignty of one country by another" in referring to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
He also refers to the activities in the war in Ukraine as atrocities, he says China is using more subtle language but has made its position clear about violations of sovereignty and disagreeing with this invasion, and on the topic of spheres of influence, he uses that to explain Putin's thinking but clearly says "this of course doesn't mean he's right". He also said "This war is not in China's interest. If it could stop immediately we would be most happy".
Then, on Taiwan he said "China has never laid down a timetable for reunification with Taiwan", that "we want peaceful reunification, because of course that is in our own interest. What is the use of a Taiwan that is totally battered and shattered?" and "People should not doubt our commitment to peaceful reunification".
If your takeaway is "his point is Donbas and Crimea are part of Russia" and "China wants to do the same to Taiwan", that's not derived from what he said.
I don’t think he specifically referenced the Ukraine or Russia when he said this is clearly a violation of one countries sovereignty by another. I think there was a lot of doublespeak there. Is it the Ukraine for refusing to allow Donbass amd Crimea go, is it the US interfering with Russia’s Sovereignty. Unless I’m missing something it seemed like he very intentionally did not say Russia is violating Ukraine’s sovereignty.
His section on Taiwan is specifically the point I am making. China will not say that Russia has no right to the Ukraine as that would suggest China has no right to Taiwan regardless if this is a political peaceful takeover or not.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
On the sanctions side of the war against Russia, interesting DW interview of Yale economics researchers saying the Russian economy is in shambles and all the numbers published recently by the Russians and republished by the IMF are false.
It's crazy to think of what could happen if a country with thousands of nuclear weapons becomes a failed state. It's not like they were even doing well before the war. They were a country with 140 million people and an economy the size of Texas.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
It's crazy to think of what could happen if a country with thousands of nuclear weapons becomes a failed state. It's not like they were even doing well before the war. They were a country with 140 million people and an economy the size of Texas.
When the Soviet Union failed it suddenly in theory created a failed state with nuclear weapons, and suddenly new and independent nations that were entered into the Nuclear club.
Eventually the situation stabalized.
Now if instead of a failed state you had Russia collapse and basically become a barbarian state, I have my doubts that's going to happen.
At the worst, you'd probably get a similar situation to Korea that whenever they want money they rattle the nuclear saber and yell loudly at the clouds.
The only thing that would be the worrying is that Nuclear weapons and materials in theory could represent fast cash. but the day and age of malignant terror groups with huge funds searching to build a dirty bomb never happened.
At the heart of things, MAD still exists and that leads to rationality at the stroke of midnight. Even a theoretical barbarian state looks at the nuclear trip line and realizes that it means death for themselves and their entire state and won't dare cross it.
With the size of nuclear arsenals in Russia, the United States, China, France and even North Korea there is serious overkill. There is no magical counter force ability or Star Wars anti-ballistic defense that's going to save your nation, its impossible.
Russia won't launch on NATO and certainly won't launch on Ukraine. China won't launch on Taiwan. Joe Biden won't wake up one morning and decide to launch on either of these two.
Ok I take that back, there is a tiny possibility that Russia debates the use of battlefield tactical nuclear weapons. Small Warheads to blast tactical targets rather then strategic targets. logistics centers, or military formations in support of a military operation.
However its really not likely, because NATO's response would be to suddenly label Putin as unstable and will try to counterforce, but NATO knows it would fail and create a general nuclear scenario.
Putin won't use his battlefield nukes because he runs the risk of destroying the country that he believes he's saving.
Stalemates all around.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I think the thing that freaks me out is if their economy really tanks, how are they going to afford to maintain their nuclear weapons? I have no idea how much Russia spends on maintenance, but the U.S. will be spending about $50 billion per year for the next 10 years maintaining their nuclear arsenal, and Russia has more of them.
If they are going to start malfunctioning on their own soil, they might be inclined to start selling some of them to anyone who pays.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
I don’t think he specifically referenced the Ukraine or Russia when he said this is clearly a violation of one countries sovereignty by another. I think there was a lot of doublespeak there. Is it the Ukraine for refusing to allow Donbass amd Crimea go, is it the US interfering with Russia’s Sovereignty. Unless I’m missing something it seemed like he very intentionally did not say Russia is violating Ukraine’s sovereignty.
His section on Taiwan is specifically the point I am making. China will not say that Russia has no right to the Ukraine as that would suggest China has no right to Taiwan regardless if this is a political peaceful takeover or not.
He repeatedly refers to Ukraine and Russia as two countries.
China has recognized Ukraine as a country for decades. Ukraine has an embassy in China. They have treaties with each other and all kinds of diplomatic relations and strategic relations as sovereign countries. Ukraine is globally recognized as a country, which includes clear and explicit recognition by both China and the UN.
That is totally different from Taiwan, which China does not recognize as a country and which is not formally recognized as a country by the UN or more than a handful of countries worldwide - a point that is very important from China's point of view.
If he was doing what you're saying, he would not have recognized Ukraine as a country.
He did.
He is expressing as clearly as he can while being diplomatic that China views the invasion of Ukraine as a violation of Ukraine's territorial integrity and that China disagrees with that action.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
Well, indications are their corruption problem extends into their strategic deterrence with the recent test failures of their newest ICBMs, so it's doubtful their nukes/ICBMs are properly maintained right now anyways. Not that its comforting at all.
Worse yet is Russia's withdraw from New START, now no one can actually do random inspections now and Shoigu's gotta pay for renos on his $18M Japanese style dacha and yachts from somewhere. It not coming from is $80K state salary.
Another showcase example of Russian embezzlement and corruption is the Kuznetsov and how poorly it's been maintained due to corruption when the Chinese have no problems with theirs.
I think the thing that freaks me out is if their economy really tanks, how are they going to afford to maintain their nuclear weapons? I have no idea how much Russia spends on maintenance, but the U.S. will be spending about $50 billion per year for the next 10 years maintaining their nuclear arsenal, and Russia has more of them.
If they are going to start malfunctioning on their own soil, they might be inclined to start selling some of them to anyone who pays.
Do you honestly think the Russian nuclear arsenal has been appropriately maintained for the last 30 odd years? Like that's the one area that hasn't been completely ransacked by corruption and embezzlement?
Do you honestly think the Russian nuclear arsenal has been appropriately maintained for the last 30 odd years? Like that's the one area that hasn't been completely ransacked by corruption and embezzlement?
They were probably better maintained cuz the New START treaty mandated random inspections of nukes by Americans so Russia had to at least keep up appearances, but that's gone out the window now.
It's crazy to think of what could happen if a country with thousands of nuclear weapons becomes a failed state. It's not like they were even doing well before the war. They were a country with 140 million people and an economy the size of Texas.
As CC mentioned, we've already gone through this with the fall of the USSR. Not an ideal situation but not necessarily worse than having a madman in charge of those nukes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
I think the thing that freaks me out is if their economy really tanks, how are they going to afford to maintain their nuclear weapons? I have no idea how much Russia spends on maintenance, but the U.S. will be spending about $50 billion per year for the next 10 years maintaining their nuclear arsenal, and Russia has more of them.
If they are going to start malfunctioning on their own soil, they might be inclined to start selling some of them to anyone who pays.
Looks like they aren't being well maintained now judging by the failed ICBM test recently. If that was supposed to be a big crowning achievement for Putin ahead of his speech it's hard to believe the rest of the missiles are well maintained.
Edit: Looks like others above have said the same thing.
