3 ms·

The gas+oil spigot is not completely turned off yet, even by sanctions adherent countries. The real difficulty comes if there's an end run around the sanctions

by cmurf 5y ago

The gas+oil spigot is not completely turned off yet, even by sanctions adherent countries. The real difficulty comes if there's an end run around the sanctions by China and/or India. Imagine an exodus from that market. Imagine Apple having to exit China. And imagine all the services and trade with India. Those are very different spigots than oil and gas. Closing those is going to involve a lot of pain. Investing in those countries always involved tradeoffs. But the idea any country would help another in a blatantly illegal war of aggression to expand borders - it's so contrary to the U.N. charter and post-WW2 world that it's really quite surprising. China? As a founding member of the U.N. and permanent member of the Security Council helping Russia in any capacity? I am surprised. China may have lost upwards of 15 million in WW2. Have we forgotten everything?

belval 5y ago
I am surprised by the direction China took here. This is a European war, not a US one, to me they had everything to gain by painting themselves as a supporter of Ukraine (getting preferable treatment from the EU) than as a neutral party. China being against US interest in general makes perfect sense to me, but against the EU it just does not make as much sense.
- brabel 5y ago
  China is against the West (or anyone else) intruding on other nations issues (specially China's and its neighbours)... so, it's not suprising they won't wish to take sides on a fairly regional fight they have very little historical or economical interest in. Other distant, large but non-aligned countries like India and Brazil seem to have taken similar positions - not taking sides, just hoping for peace. The interested parties in this war are NATO countries and Russia, besides Ukraine, because the war is a consequence of decades of hostilities regarding the re-alignment of the ex-USSR territories East of Poland towards the West and against Russia.
  - cmurf 5y ago
    Members of the Security Council are obligated to intrude. That is the agreement they are a party to. If China cannot perform that duty, they need to withdraw as a permanent member of the Security Council. Russia has announced they have the right to expand their borders using aggression. They have committe the supreme international crime, as judged at Nuremberg. If countries aren't subscribing to that world view anymore, then we are lost. We are doomed to have a world war three. The entire fucking point of these institutions is to prevent another one. If nothing else China should be an institutionalist, preserving the international system of laws for its own long term interest. Maybe it's lost on people, but Poland told NATO in 1993 that if they weren't allowed to join, they were going to build their own nukes. Because they didn't trust Russia. They weren't the only one. If the U.N. Charter system dissolves, the NPT falls soon after that. And then it's an arms race.
- tut-urut-utut 5y ago
  > China being against US interest in general makes perfect sense to me, but against the EU it just does not make as much sense. I'm not sure if EU can be considered as a party able to care about own interest. It's just a group that is more concerned about US than common European interest. If it were an independent factor, we would already have own army and there would be no US occupation^H "support" troops scattered at every strategic point in Europe. And Europe would have strong rules that would limit the influence of US traditional and social media in Europe, that basically create what Europeans think and want. So yes, if China wants to be number one, it will focus on harming the current number one, and not his minions, which will sooner or later just change their master when number one changes.
  - throwaway_4ever 5y ago
    > It's just a group that is more concerned about US than common European interest. If it were an independent factor, we would already have own army and there would be no US occupation^H "support" troops scattered at every strategic point in Europe. US as Europe's whipping boy knows little bounds. The US has repeatedly asked EU countries to stop funding Putin's war machine and fund their own militaries with something substantial. Most EU countries have continued to poo-poo this, forcing US to spend 4% GDP on defense while Germany has gotten away with 1% while funding Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Trump was threatening to remove majority of military funding to Germany and they were aghast, "how dare the US not spend their $ to protect us." Of course people like you still somehow make US patronage of your defense into an "occupation." We'd be ecstatic if you actually funded your own instead of making us just to keep international order.
    - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
      If spending money on military and "defending" Europe doesn't serve American interests, why not just leave Europe and let us defend ourselves? Your army stays to make sure it protects your interest, not ours. If you think USA is doing us a favour, just leave Europe, and Middle East, and Africa, and Asia. Just go back to your continent and let us deal with Putin and other challenges best we can. We don't need neither your "protection" nor your "protection fee". Maybe without US warmongering, we would not need to be afraid of Russia. German technology and Russian resources is something that USA might be scared to death to end its world domination.

by cmurf 5y ago

belval 5y ago

I am surprised by the direction China took here. This is a European war, not a US one, to me they had everything to gain by painting themselves as a supporter of Ukraine (getting preferable treatment from the EU) than as a neutral party. China being against US interest in general makes perfect sense to me, but against the EU it just does not make as much sense.

brabel 5y ago
China is against the West (or anyone else) intruding on other nations issues (specially China's and its neighbours)... so, it's not suprising they won't wish to take sides on a fairly regional fight they have very little historical or economical interest in. Other distant, large but non-aligned countries like India and Brazil seem to have taken similar positions - not taking sides, just hoping for peace. The interested parties in this war are NATO countries and Russia, besides Ukraine, because the war is a consequence of decades of hostilities regarding the re-alignment of the ex-USSR territories East of Poland towards the West and against Russia.
- cmurf 5y ago
  Members of the Security Council are obligated to intrude. That is the agreement they are a party to. If China cannot perform that duty, they need to withdraw as a permanent member of the Security Council. Russia has announced they have the right to expand their borders using aggression. They have committe the supreme international crime, as judged at Nuremberg. If countries aren't subscribing to that world view anymore, then we are lost. We are doomed to have a world war three. The entire fucking point of these institutions is to prevent another one. If nothing else China should be an institutionalist, preserving the international system of laws for its own long term interest. Maybe it's lost on people, but Poland told NATO in 1993 that if they weren't allowed to join, they were going to build their own nukes. Because they didn't trust Russia. They weren't the only one. If the U.N. Charter system dissolves, the NPT falls soon after that. And then it's an arms race.
tut-urut-utut 5y ago
> China being against US interest in general makes perfect sense to me, but against the EU it just does not make as much sense. I'm not sure if EU can be considered as a party able to care about own interest. It's just a group that is more concerned about US than common European interest. If it were an independent factor, we would already have own army and there would be no US occupation^H "support" troops scattered at every strategic point in Europe. And Europe would have strong rules that would limit the influence of US traditional and social media in Europe, that basically create what Europeans think and want. So yes, if China wants to be number one, it will focus on harming the current number one, and not his minions, which will sooner or later just change their master when number one changes.
- throwaway_4ever 5y ago
  > It's just a group that is more concerned about US than common European interest. If it were an independent factor, we would already have own army and there would be no US occupation^H "support" troops scattered at every strategic point in Europe. US as Europe's whipping boy knows little bounds. The US has repeatedly asked EU countries to stop funding Putin's war machine and fund their own militaries with something substantial. Most EU countries have continued to poo-poo this, forcing US to spend 4% GDP on defense while Germany has gotten away with 1% while funding Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Trump was threatening to remove majority of military funding to Germany and they were aghast, "how dare the US not spend their $ to protect us." Of course people like you still somehow make US patronage of your defense into an "occupation." We'd be ecstatic if you actually funded your own instead of making us just to keep international order.
  - tut-urut-utut 5y ago
    If spending money on military and "defending" Europe doesn't serve American interests, why not just leave Europe and let us defend ourselves? Your army stays to make sure it protects your interest, not ours. If you think USA is doing us a favour, just leave Europe, and Middle East, and Africa, and Asia. Just go back to your continent and let us deal with Putin and other challenges best we can. We don't need neither your "protection" nor your "protection fee". Maybe without US warmongering, we would not need to be afraid of Russia. German technology and Russian resources is something that USA might be scared to death to end its world domination.