Right but at no point did Canada try to provide arms to the Iraqis with the position that we took there. Can't say the same for China.
A further 30 Canadians worked at the US Central Command in Qatar, and 150 troops were on exchange with US and British forces in proximity to combat.[6] North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) stationed Canadian Air Force pilots also flew combat missions with the US Air Force E-3 Sentry, and exchange officers fought with US units. Canadian pilots also flew Boeing C-17s into Iraq to "season" the flight crews.[34] In all, 40 to 50 Canadian military members participated in the conflict.
Canada did support the us a bit in Iraq without committing to the conflict
It's hardly surprising, and I think it's an honest attempt from China, especially after seeing that extended interview from that retired colonel.
They want peace, that is clear. They also don't want to antagonize Russia because they are their biggest neighbor. So they make statements stating they want peace, but don't use words that would piss off the Russians like Crimea, War, Donbass, Atrocities, etc.
It's like when the US invaded Iraq. Canada was against it, but they weren't about to start antagonizing the US with inflammatory speech, but it would have been warranted. What the US did in Iraq was criminal and did not have the backing of its Allies.
Yeah I think some people are being unnecessarily hard on China here. I think there's mostly positives from that announcement, and some I think very fair points, even if they are unpopular in the west.
To begin with, yes, if you want to help bring about peace through diplomacy, you can't call either side names, even names they deserve like "genocidal megalomanic psychopath". Even if everyone is thinking it, it's just a basic starting point for diplomacy to not say that stuff out loud.
Things I consider straight up positives. Most of these lines are from the detailed version:
- "The threat or use of nuclear weapons should be opposed." This is a pretty straight jab at Putin and Russia. Coming from China, this could actually have an effect on Russian rhetoric, which would be great.
- "The security of a country should not be pursued at the expense of others." This is also a pretty straight jab at Russia. They're the ones using the "we attacked to defend ourselves" rhetoric. China is saying they're not buying that, and there's a lot of countries that listen. (It's also a bit of a jab at US for what they did in during "The War on Terror", which is also extremely fair.)
- "The sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively upheld." China is saying they're not likely to recognize annexed Ukrainian territories as part of Russia anytime soon, and that they think Russia is in the wrong here. They're not saying it strongly enough to tie their hands or offend anyone, but they're still saying it, which is better than nothing.
- "Facilitating grain exports". This is a topic that got a lot of attention at the start of the war but has been a bit forgotten, it's good that China wants to bring this back to the forefront. Hunger can breed more instability in other parts of the world, that's bad, and also hunger is bad and always hurts the poorest and the weakest people. It's also something Russia and Ukraine have agreed upon before.
- "Ceasing hostilities" and "Resuming peace talks". This isn't the talk of someone who's about to start supporting one side militarily. Of course China might be lying about this, but I doubt it. They have a lot of goodwill to lose from supporting Russia, and very little to gain, and they've put a lot of work and resources into building themselves up as the nice superpower that doesn't drag it's allies into wars. I think this is legit, China mostly just wants this to be over.
Now for the stuff that I don't think is "good", but I think are extremely fair points from China:
- "Stopping unilateral sanctions. China opposes unilateral sanctions unauthorized by the UN Security Council. Relevant countries should stop abusing unilateral sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction” against other countries, so as to do their share in deescalating the Ukraine crisis and create conditions for developing countries to grow their economies and better the lives of their people."
Why does Joe Biden's administration get to decide what sanctions are put on Russia? Yes, everyone understands the geopolitical reasons that create this situation, but it's extremely reasonable to point out that the US unilaterally deciding what "needs to be done" and then bullying others to follow them isn't exactly fair. We don't have to like it here in the Ukraine-supporting-West, but you can't say China doesn't have a point here, especially when you zoom out of this specific conflict. It's not a fair system for the world, and China is saying out loud what much of the world is thinking. Especially since many of the countries that are being pressured by the west to join in on the sanctions on Russia are much weaker economies than those in the west, and it's not like they're getting compensated for sanctioning Russia. This is one of those topics that's not discussed much in the US and western Europe, because we're mostly not the ones getting bullied, but it's a real issue that frankly should be discussed more. Personally I think this should be discussed after Russia has been thrown out of Ukraine and Putin lies dead in an unmarked grave, but the west regularly using economic sanctions as a weapon is unpopular in a lot of places and a real cause of international tension.
This will earn China a gazillion goodwill points and backchannel "thank you"s from a lot of countries that feel like they're being pressured into taking sides in a war that has nothing to do with them. I get it, and I actually have a lot of sympathy for the developing countries taking extra economic hits right after The Pandemic.
- "Keeping industrial and supply chains stable." This is in part a repetition of the previous point, but they're obviously also saying they're not going to start sanctioning Russia. (At least not very hard, they've been doing some things.) It's not great, but it's nothing new, and it's better to just have it clearly out there. They're a superpower, this is their primary interest here, and others will just have to deal with it. It's de-escalation by being open about what they want.
The upside of the whole of what China just said to me is that they pretty clearly said they want two things: Trade, and "peace" which also means more trade. So I think we can believe them when they say they don't like this war. Because the other option was to prolong the war by arming Russia. Doesn't sound like they're interested in that either.
That also very heavily suggests that they're not about to make moves around Taiwan at this point in time. China wants trade to flow, which calls for lowering tensions, so doing something about Taiwan is not in China's short term interest right now.
Just overall, China's message to me was kind of a reassuring one; they're still superpowered a-holes, but they don't think this war is in their interest and they don't like the way international tensions is interfering with them getting richer, and I think you can generally trust someone when they're admitting their selfish interests.
Last edited by Itse; 02-24-2023 at 01:47 PM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Yeah I think some people are being unnecessarily hard on China here. I think there's mostly positives from that announcement, and some I think very fair points, even if they are unpopular in the west.
Just overall, China's message to me was kind of a reassuring one; they're still superpowered a-holes, but they don't think this war is in their interest and they don't like the way international tensions is interfering with them getting richer, and I think you can generally trust someone when they're admitting their selfish interests.
For me, there is a huge trust gap between what China says, and what China does that influences how hard I am with China's public statements. China's recent history is filled with duplicitous and misleading statements that would lead me to not trust anything they say and wait for their actions to really show that they mean.
Take for example, the whole Spy Balloon incident. Publicly, the Chinese were pushing for a de-escalation with the US encouraging a state visit with Antony Blinken, but at the same time they sent a huge 3 bus length wide Spy Balloon covered in SIGINT equipment, that changed course to go over US nuclear military installations, while constantly falsely claiming that the balloon was civilian in nature w/ no ability to steer and covered under international regulations meant for "light <6kg" weather balloons. They claim they want peace in the Asia Pacific, but blockaded Taiwan, criticize South Korea and Japan for increasing their military budgets when China had been ramping up spending and their power projection abilities for more than two decades. Now they are publicly pushing a peace plan for Russia and Ukraine, while at the same time preparing to sell arms to Russia based on American and German intelligence reports. They claim to be neutral in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, but sign a "treaty of unlimited friendship" with Russia almost right after Russia invaded. It's probably why Ursula von der Leyen of the EU stated that we should be skeptical of the Chinese peace plan because overall they have not been at all neutral in this conflict.
All this leads me to think China might not be in control of the hardliner elements within their military, which is super concerning. Or these actions are in line with what central CCP leadership really wants, in which case we trust nothing they say. And as with Russia, I seriously doubt any moderate "selfish economic self-interest" a-holes will survive when push comes to shove.
Last edited by FlameOn; 02-24-2023 at 04:53 PM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to FlameOn For This Useful Post:
China seems to just be advocating for complete reset and that Russia should get a mulligan, and Ukraine should just get over it. Oh, and ultimately it is the West's fault for promoting and advocating for the free will of Ukraine against Russia's imperialistic desires in the region, so there should be no repercussions for Russia. It's BS take IMO.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
China seems to just be advocating for complete reset and that Russia should get a mulligan, and Ukraine should just get over it.
I'd take it, and so would Ukraine. Unfortunately Putin still isn't ready to take any of the exits available.
Quote:
Oh, and ultimately it is the West's fault for promoting and advocating for the free will of Ukraine against Russia's imperialistic desires in the region, so there should be no repercussions for Russia. It's BS take IMO.
For me, there is a huge trust gap between what China says, and what China does that influences how hard I am with China's public statements. China's recent history is filled with duplicitous and misleading statements that would lead me to not trust anything they say and wait for their actions to really show that they mean.
Take for example, the whole Spy Balloon incident. Publicly, the Chinese were pushing for a de-escalation with the US encouraging a state visit with Antony Blinken, but at the same time they sent a huge 3 bus length wide Spy Balloon covered in SIGINT equipment, that changed course to go over US nuclear military installations, while constantly falsely claiming that the balloon was civilian in nature w/ no ability to steer and covered under international regulations meant for "light <6kg" weather balloons. They claim they want peace in the Asia Pacific, but blockaded Taiwan, criticize South Korea and Japan for increasing their military budgets when China had been ramping up spending and their power projection abilities for more than two decades. Now they are publicly pushing a peace plan for Russia and Ukraine, while at the same time preparing to sell arms to Russia based on American and German intelligence reports. They claim to be neutral in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, but sign a "treaty of unlimited friendship" with Russia almost right after Russia invaded. It's probably why Ursula von der Leyen of the EU stated that we should be skeptical of the Chinese peace plan because overall they have not been at all neutral in this conflict.
All this leads me to think China might not in control of the hardliner elements within their military, which is super concerning. Or these actions are in line with what central CCP leadership really wants in which case we trust nothing they say. And as with Russia, I seriously doubt any moderate "selfish economic self-interest" a-holes will survive when push comes to shove.
I have said it a few times here. There is a difference in the meaning of the word truth in China vs western world. Truth to us philosophically mean rooted in fact and evidence. In China it is rooted in power. Those who hold it hold the truth.
Good, Bad, Indifferent its undeniable. The two Michaels are a prime example. The justice system there can create charges and make you disappear. If the ones in power say its true you committed a crime.
Its been talked about quite a bit. Rules based open culture vs. a dystopic police state.
In short, no one should believe what is said.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OldDutch For This Useful Post:
I have said it a few times here. There is a difference in the meaning of the word truth in China vs western world. Truth to us philosophically mean rooted in fact and evidence. In China it is rooted in power. Those who hold it hold the truth.
“Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction…”
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to iggy_oi For This Useful Post:
Take for example, the whole Spy Balloon incident. Publicly, the Chinese were pushing for a de-escalation with the US encouraging a state visit with Antony Blinken, but at the same time they sent a huge 3 bus length wide Spy Balloon covered in SIGINT equipment, that changed course to go over US nuclear military installations, while constantly falsely claiming that the balloon was civilian in nature w/ no ability to steer and covered under international regulations meant for "light <6kg" weather balloons. They claim they want peace in the Asia Pacific, but blockaded Taiwan, criticize South Korea and Japan for increasing their military budgets when China had been ramping up spending and their power projection abilities for more than two decades. Now they are publicly pushing a peace plan for Russia and Ukraine, while at the same time preparing to sell arms to Russia based on American and German intelligence reports. They claim to be neutral in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, but sign a "treaty of unlimited friendship" with Russia almost right after Russia invaded. It's probably why Ursula von der Leyen of the EU stated that we should be skeptical of the Chinese peace plan because overall they have not been at all neutral in this conflict.
Fair enough, but I have the following comments:
- US spies on everyone all the time. Just like every superpower. They also all deny it, and pretend to get mad when the other guy gets caught spying on them. It's just superpowers being superpowers.
- China waving it's dick around Taiwan isn't in itself particularly out of the ordinary.
- Whenever a country increases their military budgets, everyone they might use that military against is going to say "that's bad don't do that". It's just what happens all the time, I don't see it as related to basically anything, and just gets blown up in news because of the overall international situation.
- Again, China is not sanctioning Russia. They can sell weapons if they want. The arms trade market has warmed up a lot, and China wants a piece. Additionally, if you look at it from China's perspective how is the US donating weapons to Ukraine and selling them to everyone not prolonging the war and escalating tension, yet China selling weapons IS prolonging the war?
If China starts donating weapons to Russia (or selling them on the cheap), that would be a story, but currently almost all of what you're listing is just China pretty much operating on a "business as usual" basis.
That treaty of friendship... That I can't really comment on, I don't know what it actually means in practice, and does look bad.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and we can and do openly criticize it in those mistakes west and actively pay for them. That above, and Afghanistan pullout, directly contributed to the damaged relationships with France and German intelligence leading to them discounting American reports of the seriousness of Russia's invasion plans.
Try saying "Tiananmen 6489" and "The special military operation is a war" in China/Russia we will see how hard you get re-educated or defenestrated
Two wrongs don't make a right, and we can and do openly criticize it in those mistakes west and actively pay for them. That above, and Afghanistan pullout, directly contributed to the damaged relationships with France and German intelligence leading to them discounting American reports of the seriousness of Russia's invasion plans.
Try saying "Tiananmen 6489" and "The special military operation is a war" in China/Russia we will see how hard you get re-educated or defenestrated
If you both want to ignore what some would consider to be prejudiced undertones in how the post that I quoted was worded that’s up to you. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but ignoring one of them while trying to make an argument that the other is wrong only leaves us with more wrongs.
- Again, China is not sanctioning Russia. They can sell weapons if they want. The arms trade market has warmed up a lot, and China wants a piece. Additionally, if you look at it from China's perspective how is the US donating weapons to Ukraine and selling them to everyone not prolonging the war and escalating tension, yet China selling weapons IS prolonging the war?
If China starts donating weapons to Russia (or selling them on the cheap), that would be a story, but currently almost all of what you're listing is just China pretty much operating on a "business as usual" basis.
That treaty of friendship... That I can't really comment on, I don't know what it actually means in practice, and does look bad.
Selling weapons to the aggressor party while simultaneously claiming be a neutral third party trying to mediate peace directly undermines the position of "neutral third party" and creates a conflict of interest situation where that supposed "neutral" party will actively profit from a prolonged conflict, and therefore no longer be neutral. China actively undermines their own publicly stated position, but that is "business as usual" for China. They are neither neutral nor are they incentivized to let the conflict end sooner despite what they say. Its two faced at best. Donating weapons to Russia would be even worse tho.
The US is not neutral in this conflict. They never claimed to be. It may be prolonging the war, but you also forget the US is abiding by exactly what it promised to do in the Budapest Memorandum as a condition for Ukraine giving up it's nukes. Russia broke that treaty by invading.
I'd take it, and so would Ukraine. Unfortunately Putin still isn't ready to take any of the exits available.
I don't see them saying this at all.
Quote:
"The sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries must be effectively upheld." China is saying they're not likely to recognize annexed Ukrainian territories as part of Russia anytime soon, and that they think Russia is in the wrong here. They're not saying it strongly enough to tie their hands or offend anyone, but they're still saying it, which is better than nothing.
What makes you think that China is advocating for a pre-2014 boarder in this statement as opposed the Russian annexation boarders.
Right but at no point did Canada try to provide arms to the Iraqis with the position that we took there. Can't say the same for China.
Chretien did the right thing in disagreeing with the war, but it's not like Canada was sending weapons to the Iraqis to help them protect themselves from the illegal invasion either.
Also, didn't Canada provide the US with helicopters, as well as a bunch of logistical support?
Anyways, there are a lot of important contextual differences missing from the comparison. To be a bit more equivalent the Iraq war would have needed to be a situation where the US was taking huge losses in a protracted conflict against an Iraq supported by a coalition of powerful countries, the most powerful of which would have been much more powerul than the US and targeting Canada with sanctions on key industries, building new military bases around Canada, holding military exercises in waters around Canada, and pushing other countries in the world not to do business with Canadian companies, not to mention pushing anti-Canadian ideological messaging. And that powerful country would also have had a 100+ year history of leading military regime changes in foreign nations to put in place governments friendly to their interests and be led by a president who hated the American president and gave a speech around the start of the war saying that the American president can't stay in power.
That's not even mentioning the history of invasion and domination that Canada would have faced from members of that coalition in the past.
The US military would also have needed to be clearly responsible for some awful atrocities, and Iraq would have also needed to be a country that Canada had important strategic relationships with and investment in.
What would Chretien's calculus have been under those circumstances? Who knows, but it would have been a much more complex and challenging situation for him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
For me, there is a huge trust gap between what China says, and what China does that influences how hard I am with China's public statements. China's recent history is filled with duplicitous and misleading statements that would lead me to not trust anything they say and wait for their actions to really show that they mean.
Take for example, the whole Spy Balloon incident. Publicly, the Chinese were pushing for a de-escalation with the US encouraging a state visit with Antony Blinken, but at the same time they sent a huge 3 bus length wide Spy Balloon covered in SIGINT equipment, that changed course to go over US nuclear military installations, while constantly falsely claiming that the balloon was civilian in nature w/ no ability to steer and covered under international regulations meant for "light <6kg" weather balloons. They claim they want peace in the Asia Pacific, but blockaded Taiwan, criticize South Korea and Japan for increasing their military budgets when China had been ramping up spending and their power projection abilities for more than two decades. Now they are publicly pushing a peace plan for Russia and Ukraine, while at the same time preparing to sell arms to Russia based on American and German intelligence reports. They claim to be neutral in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, but sign a "treaty of unlimited friendship" with Russia almost right after Russia invaded. It's probably why Ursula von der Leyen of the EU stated that we should be skeptical of the Chinese peace plan because overall they have not been at all neutral in this conflict.
All this leads me to think China might not in control of the hardliner elements within their military, which is super concerning. Or these actions are in line with what central CCP leadership really wants in which case we trust nothing they say. And as with Russia, I seriously doubt any moderate "selfish economic self-interest" a-holes will survive when push comes to shove.
The treaty of unlimited friendship was signed weeks before the invasion of Ukraine, not afterwards.
The whole thing with the balloon was utterly ridiculous. Everyone knows both countries engage in all kinds of much more invasive spying all the time. Had it not been turned into a domestic political issue by Fox News and the right wing making a big deal out of it to attack Biden as weak, I doubt anyone would have cared. As it was, the incident can easily be viewed from the Chinese side as the US taking something trivial and blowing it up into a political conflict full of accusations and strong words while publicly ditching a planned diplomatic meeting.
Also, wrt China ramping up military spending, here is China's military spending record as percentage of GDP link
It has been going up in nominal figures, but it has been pretty stable as a percentage of GDP and basically on par with Canada's spending on the same basis through much of the last decade. It's much less than the US or India, and not high ranking at all in a global context.
Still, there's no doubt the Chinese military has been growing and becoming more advanced. Shouldn't it have that right though?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
Two wrongs don't make a right, and we can and do openly criticize it in those mistakes west and actively pay for them. That above, and Afghanistan pullout, directly contributed to the damaged relationships with France and German intelligence leading to them discounting American reports of the seriousness of Russia's invasion plans.
Try saying "Tiananmen 6489" and "The special military operation is a war" in China/Russia we will see how hard you get re-educated or defenestrated
What happened with all the protests a couple of months ago where students were out in the street even calling for an end to the Communist Party and for Xi Jinping to step down? According to the Western news that was hyped as going to be Tiananmen round two with tanks crushing people in the street and mass incarceration. Turned out a few people had talkings to from the police before being sent home and the government listened to the demands, made policy changes, and the protests ended peacefully. Nobody defenestrated.
I totally understand being distrustful and wanting to see what actually is done rather than what's said. As Zelensky has said, "the fact that China started talking about Ukraine is not bad. But the question is what follows the words. The question is in the steps and where they will lead to"
I'm glad that China is putting forward a plan for peace, that Zelensky is open to working with China, and that Xi and Zelensky will meet. It's much better than what could be. Hopefully it is followed by steps that move things toward peace. We can only wait and see.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
Chretien did the right thing in disagreeing with the war, but it's not like Canada was sending weapons to the Iraqis to help them protect themselves from the illegal invasion either.
What would Chretien's calculus have been under those circumstances? Who knows, but it would have been a much more complex and challenging situation for him.
That wasn't my point there, I'm not arguing on the merits of whether Canada participated in the Iraq war or not, I was pointing at the hypocrisy of the CCP position of pushing for a peace deal while pushing arms to Russia and saying it's akin to if Canada took a position of not participating in the Iraq war, but still provided weapons to Iraq, which would be equally contradictory position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyB
The treaty of unlimited friendship was signed weeks before the invasion of Ukraine, not afterwards.
The whole thing with the balloon was utterly ridiculous. Everyone knows both countries engage in all kinds of much more invasive spying all the time. Had it not been turned into a domestic political issue by Fox News and the right wing making a big deal out of it to attack Biden as weak, I doubt anyone would have cared. As it was, the incident can easily be viewed from the Chinese side as the US taking something trivial and blowing it up into a political conflict full of accusations and strong words while publicly ditching a planned diplomatic meeting.
Also, wrt China ramping up military spending, here is China's military spending record as percentage of GDP link
It has been going up in nominal figures, but it has been pretty stable as a percentage of GDP and basically on par with Canada's spending on the same basis through much of the last decade. It's much less than the US or India, and not high ranking at all in a global context.
Still, there's no doubt the Chinese military has been growing and becoming more advanced. Shouldn't it have that right though?
Yea timing a little off on the treaty but the fact remained China would very likely have been conveyed Russia's intentions ahead of time. Especially around the Olympic delay.
The statements the CCP made about the balloon are particularly two faced trying to cover up what was clearly a huge diplomatic miscalculation internally. It is still a clear violation of US airspace and had the US done the same, do you truly thing the Chinese media would have not been up in arms about it? US has not violated airspace to do spy overflights since Powers got shot down, it's using satellite these days.
Publicly stated military growth is one thing, but CCP's military growth is far more opaque than that for one thing. Byzantine would be how I would characterize Chinese military funding, just like how the Evergrande and CNA groups funding is structured. They've spent a huge amount on PMCs, etc which are not exactly budgeted the same way. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7SziUoeVpk
Sure they have a right to spend in line with their GDP for spending, but you don't see SK or Japan buzzing other countries aircraft, blockading other countries commercial traffic, or aggressively making ludicrous claims in the sea well outside their territorial waters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyB
What happened with all the protests a couple of months ago where students were out in the street even calling for an end to the Communist Party and for Xi Jinping to step down? According to the Western news that was hyped as going to be Tiananmen round two with tanks crushing people in the street and mass incarceration. Turned out a few people had talkings to from the police before being sent home and the government listened to the demands, made policy changes, and the protests ended peacefully. Nobody defenestrated.
I totally understand being distrustful and wanting to see what actually is done rather than what's said. As Zelensky has said, "the fact that China started talking about Ukraine is not bad. But the question is what follows the words. The question is in the steps and where they will lead to"
I'm glad that China is putting forward a plan for peace, that Zelensky is open to working with China, and that Xi and Zelensky will meet. It's much better than what could be. Hopefully it is followed by steps that move things toward peace. We can only wait and see.
Sure, it's a wait and see, but history of recent actions have not been great on CCP's part, and anger over covid measures were pretty wide spread that they may have had to act without violence. We will see.
