China to provide military aid to Russia

[Kruska]

When I hear about double standards I can't help but grin. Double standards is the way diplomacy as a whole works. Always been, always will.

Me too, since they are the norm within diplomacy - but inciting or starting a war - is not diplomacy to me, it's simply destruction and killing to obtain ones goals.
The double standards I referred to, are those of the people in general - especially harboured in majority amongst democrats, libs and greens.

About referendums. If you are so in favour of them and that is China's goals, then let it show a lead in this by its own example. Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang. Would be interesting to see.

HK - why? it belonged 100% to China for a thousand years and more, and was "militarily enforced" by the Brits to become a colonial possession with an official expiry date.
Xinjiang - why? Because some insignificant ultra-nationalist terrorist organizations claim it to be theirs? ridiculous. Xinjiang has been an integral part of China for hundreds of years.

I had already expressed to you that reverting or seeking refuge into history beyond 40 years - (basically two generations) doesn't make sense and simply isn't feasible.
Or do you want to ask the Red-Indians and Hawaiians in the USA as well? or Crimean Tartars, and so on - never-ending.

The Ukraine issue/war, is happening right now - not a 100 or a 1000 years ago.

Taiwan? they already have their own passport, government and even military - so what's the issue? Is there a war going on between Taiwan and China? - I must have missed out on that one completely. Where did you read or hear about it? any sources available?

 

[Kruska]

Wolodymyr Selenskyj has publicly declared that he finds it encouraging that China involves itself and is ready to assist towards a peace-process. He is keen and looking forward to meeting with China's government representatives. Whilst NATO, EU and the USA have only reacted negatively onto China's peace-proposal.

As I stated before - I am too very keen to find out what "support" China is willing to offer Ukraine. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a new "friendship" on the rise.

Ukraine's military intelligence service NUR, has also publicly stated that there is no evidence towards Chinese weapons or ammunition having been supplied to Russia.

BTW; The Whitehouse has officially stated that Biden was coerced by Germany into supplying Abram tanks - Wow, Germany a secret superpower.

 

[georgephillip]

How would we feel if either of these nation's R-or-C went to war with any country bordering the United States ???? We would think that if the bordering country fell, then we would be next. So undoubtedly we look at Ukraine in a way that if it falls, the NATO countries are next right

Imho, Putin knows he can never conquer all of Ukraine much less move on to Poland and beyond, but his logic in Ukraine should make a lot of sense to Americans:

The Ukraine War One Year in: Nine False Narratives

"As John Mearsheimer wrote last summer: 'Putin’s logic should make perfect sense to Americans, who have long been committed to the Monroe Doctrine, which stipulates that no distant great power is allowed to place any of its military forces in the Western Hemisphere.'

"Again, imagine the geopolitics inverted and ask yourself how Washington would respond to Putin or Xi Jinping going to Cuba to suggest that Biden should not remain in power as he orders troops across the Rio Grande to block Mexico (from which the Southwestern US and California were stolen by the US military in 1846-48) from joining a Russian and/or Chinese military alliance – this followed by one of Putin or Xi’s top generals expressing a desire 'to see the United States weakened.'"

 

[ESay]

Me too, since they are the norm within diplomacy - but inciting or starting a war - is not diplomacy to me, it's simply destruction and killing to obtain ones goals.
The double standards I referred to, are those of the people in general - especially harboured in majority amongst democrats, libs and greens.

HK - why? it belonged 100% to China for a thousand years and more, and was "militarily enforced" by the Brits to become a colonial possession with an official expiry date.
Xinjiang - why? Because some insignificant ultra-nationalist terrorist organizations claim it to be theirs? ridiculous. Xinjiang has been an integral part of China for hundreds of years.

I had already expressed to you that reverting or seeking refuge into history beyond 40 years - (basically two generations) doesn't make sense and simply isn't feasible.
Or do you want to ask the Red-Indians and Hawaiians in the USA as well? or Crimean Tartars, and so on - never-ending.

The Ukraine issue/war, is happening right now - not a 100 or a 1000 years ago.

Taiwan? they already have their own passport, government and even military - so what's the issue? Is there a war going on between Taiwan and China? - I must have missed out on that one completely. Where did you read or hear about it? any sources available?

It is interesting to see how you speculate about thousands and hundreds of years with regard to Hong Kong and Taiwan and then claim that my reverting to history beyond 40 years doesn't make sense. Double standards?

Referendums can be held only in the time of war. That is a new level.

 

[Kruska]

It is interesting to see how you speculate about thousands and hundreds of years with regard to Hong Kong and Taiwan and then claim that my reverting to history beyond 40 years doesn't make sense. Double standards?

Referendums can be held only in the time of war. That is a new level.

I don't speculate at all.
You obviously don't seem to understand the UN Charter and the specific issue of "self-determination" and it's difference to a plebiscite due to a countries constitution which might allow for such a cause.
The "self-determination........." is only in regards to a country attacking another country - just like in the Ukraine issue. Upon e.g. Russia declaring occupied territory to be theirs;
The UN can:
a. simply invalidate such a move by Russia - as they did - via not acknowledging Russia's pols, or self proclaimed republics.
b. call in a pol under UN supervision to decide in regards who those conquered people want to belong to - maybe they might even prefer an own county - very likely for Crimea.

Therefore you cited examples e.g. HK, or Xinjiang are not matters that the UN has a right to intervene in regards to a poll - it's termed internal affairs of a sovereign state.
The UN can complain towards a violation of human rights and try a resolution towards sanctions - which can be stopped anytime by China via it's veto right.
Taiwan: Only upon being governed/administrated by the USA in 1945 thus ending Japanese occupation since 1895 as being a Japanese colony - the UN could have instituted a poll. Since at that time China was ruled by the KMT - the USA and therefore the UN - didn't care.

When the KMT military took over Taiwan 1948/49 from US administration and proceeded towards killings and suppression of the Taiwan natives - a UN poll could have been conducted. Again the UN did not care.

Since 1972 the USA and the UN have acquitted towards a "one country" two systems policy - as such the UN officially sanctioned Taiwan is an internal affair of the PRC.

 

[ESay]

I don't speculate at all.
You obviously don't seem to understand the UN Charter and the specific issue of "self-determination" and it's difference to a plebiscite due to a countries constitution which might allow for such a cause.
The "self-determination........." is only in regards to a country attacking another country - just like in the Ukraine issue. Upon e.g. Russia declaring occupied territory to be theirs;
The UN can:
a. simply invalidate such a move by Russia - as they did - via not acknowledging Russia's pols, or self proclaimed republics.
b. call in a pol under UN supervision to decide in regards who those conquered people want to belong to - maybe they might even prefer an own county - very likely for Crimea.

Therefore you cited examples e.g. HK, or Xinjiang are not matters that the UN has a right to intervene in regards to a poll - it's termed internal affairs of a sovereign state.
The UN can complain towards a violation of human rights and try a resolution towards sanctions - which can be stopped anytime by China via it's veto right.
Taiwan: Only upon being governed/administrated by the USA in 1945 thus ending Japanese occupation since 1895 as being a Japanese colony - the UN could have instituted a poll. Since at that time China was ruled by the KMT - the USA and therefore the UN - didn't care.

When the KMT military took over Taiwan 1948/49 from US administration and proceeded towards killings and suppression of the Taiwan natives - a UN poll could have been conducted. Again the UN did not care.

Since 1972 the USA and the UN have acquitted towards a "one country" two systems policy - as such the UN officially sanctioned Taiwan is an internal affair of the PRC.

Have no idea where you got the idea that the right on self-determination is applied only to nations under attack. If I remember correctly, this right was included to the UN legislation to lay legal ground for African nations in their decolonisation efforts.

 

[Kruska]

Have no idea where you got the idea that the right on self-determination is applied only to nations under attack. If I remember correctly, this right was included to the UN legislation to lay legal ground for African nations in their decolonisation efforts.

You can read it up - when you check out the UN Charter.

Chapter I: Purposes and Principles (Articles 1-2) | United Nations

www.un.org

Chapter 1. Article 1. is about regulating the relationship amongst nations - not within nations.

It was introduced into the UN charter in 1945 - way before all these colonies throughout the world became independent. That is why I had also referred the Taiwan issue to you, since it was a Japanese colony. It was in regards to colonies in general - not just for Africa.

Once a former colony calls out it's independence it becomes a dispute between two nations. - therefore Charter 1. Article 1. comes in.

The sometimes peaceful handover of colonies in e.g. Africa, were due to those independence movements having established partial government functions. Which were initiated, implemented due to Article 73 of the Charter, calling for “self-government” and “the progressive development” of “free political institutions".

AFAIK there are no more colonies being held by any country - therefore the UN basic principle of "self-determination....." now can only be invoked in regards to war's between existing nations. e.g. Ukraine-Russia.
See:

Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression (Articles 39-51) | United Nations

www.un.org

 

[ESay]

You can read it up - when you check out the UN Charter.

Chapter I: Purposes and Principles (Articles 1-2) | United Nations

www.un.org

Chapter 1. Article 1. is about regulating the relationship amongst nations - not within nations.

It was introduced into the UN charter in 1945 - way before all these colonies throughout the world became independent. That is why I had also referred the Taiwan issue to you, since it was a Japanese colony. It was in regards to colonies in general - not just for Africa.

Once a former colony calls out it's independence it becomes a dispute between two nations. - therefore Charter 1. Article 1. comes in.

The sometimes peaceful handover of colonies in e.g. Africa, were due to those independence movements having established partial government functions. Which were initiated, implemented due to Article 73 of the Charter, calling for “self-government” and “the progressive development” of “free political institutions".

AFAIK there are no more colonies being held by any country - therefore the UN basic principle of "self-determination....." now can only be invoked in regards to war's between existing nations. e.g. Ukraine-Russia.
See:

Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression (Articles 39-51) | United Nations

www.un.org

That the principle of self-determination can only be invoked in regards to wars is just your fantasy and nothing more.

I can fantasise further and claim that in the case of absence of 'free political institutions' oppressed nations can demand self-determination. Yes, Tibet and Xinjiang.

 

[Kruska]

That the principle of self-determination can only be invoked in regards to wars is just your fantasy and nothing more.

I can fantasise further and claim that in the case of absence of 'free political institutions' oppressed nations can demand self-determination. Yes, Tibet and Xinjiang.

Well keep on fantasizing:

Chapter1. Article 2.
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Chapter VII - is solely about breaking the peace - aka war.
I had already forwarded Chapter 7. to you.

But anyway it's clear, that you know little to nothing about international law, nothing about Xinjiang and nothing about Tibet. You can't even get it into your knucklehead that neither Tibet nor Xinjiang are nations. In 1971 the UN had acquitted the present borders of the PRC, which beholds the province of Tibet. You simply parrot anti-China narratives.

 

[georgephillip]

They are very smart but the culture in communist china does not reward innovation

Look what happened to the founder of Alibaba when he became too successful and a rival to Xi and the CCP

He is virtually under house arrest

China has no intention of allowing billionaires to control its government as has happened in the US and UK; it also will not allow bankers on Wall Street and London to centrally plan its economy.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other ‘ism’ - Friends of Socialist China

"What many in the West don’t understand: socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other ‘ism.’

"The extent to which Chinese socialism has improved people’s lives is historically unprecedented.

"It could not have been achieved under capitalism."

Western elites expected (demanded) China and Russia develop economically in ways similar to Korea and Japan, i.e., by serving the interests of western investors first and foremost.

That will never happen.
The US dollar will lose its role as principal global reserve currency first.
The only remaining alternative for the US/UK is currently on full display in Ukraine today.

 

[Mac-7]

China has no intention of allowing billionaires to control its government as has happened in the US and UK; it also will not allow bankers on Wall Street and London to centrally plan its economy.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other ‘ism’ - Friends of Socialist China

"What many in the West don’t understand: socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other ‘ism.’

"The extent to which Chinese socialism has improved people’s lives is historically unprecedented.

"It could not have been achieved under capitalism."

Western elites expected (demanded) China and Russia develop economically in ways similar to Korea and Japan, i.e., by serving the interests of western investors first and foremost.

That will never happen.
The US dollar will lose its role as principal global reserve currency first.
The only remaining alternative for the US/UK is currently on full display in Ukraine today.

China is not any sort of benevolent socialism that anyone in Norway or Sweden would recognize

First of all because there is no safety net worthy of the name

People literally die of starvation with no assistance from the government

In china under the CCP individuals are expendable and their value measured only by their usefulness to the state

Capitalism can be demanding in that it tends not to reward the stupid or the lazy

But America has more bleeding hearts in its little finger than there are in all of communist china

 

[Kruska]

First of all because there is no safety net worthy of the name

Again someone like you - proofs to know nothing about China.
To compare China with e.g. Sweden is simply ludicrous - compare it with e.g. Indonesia, the Philippines, India, Brazil, etc. , and China is far more advanced in that matter.

People literally die of starvation with no assistance from the government

Any proof? off course not - its primitive propaganda spread by people like you

Capitalism can be demanding in that it tends not to reward the stupid or the lazy

Great! Then why do you criticize China for "supposedly" not having a safety net - which is needed to support - in your words: stupid or lazy people.

 

[ESay]

Well keep on fantasizing:

Chapter1. Article 2.
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Chapter VII - is solely about breaking the peace - aka war.
I had already forwarded Chapter 7. to you.

But anyway it's clear, that you know little to nothing about international law, nothing about Xinjiang and nothing about Tibet. You can't even get it into your knucklehead that neither Tibet nor Xinjiang are nations. In 1971 the UN had acquitted the present borders of the PRC, which beholds the province of Tibet. You simply parrot anti-China narratives.

Yeah, likewise the Crimea and Donbas aren't nations, either. And Ukraine was recognised in its borders, including Crimea and Donbas, in 1991 by the UN and also by Russia afterwards. So, you either support territorial integrity of a state or play on the tune for the other side.

The question about regional referendums in Ukraine and a peaceful national divorce should have been brought in 2014. Before all that mess started. Now your ideas about that don't hold water at all.

 

[Mac-7]

Any proof? off course not - its primitive propaganda spread by people like you

Chinese residents ‘STARVING’ as brutal lockdown bans them leaving home

RESIDENTS under strict lowdown rules in one of China’s largest cities say they are facing starvation after they were banned from going outside to get food. Officials running the city of Xi’an on Mo…

www.the-sun.com

https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/closures/china-bans-13-million-from-going-outside-as-they-face-starvation-brutal-crackdowns/news-story/39e404b6c5a8693f8edbc4d564bd0f8e

 

[Kruska]

Chinese residents ‘STARVING’ as brutal lockdown bans them leaving home

RESIDENTS under strict lowdown rules in one of China’s largest cities say they are facing starvation after they were banned from going outside to get food. Officials running the city of Xi’an on Mo…

www.the-sun.com

https://www.news.com.au/world/coronavirus/closures/china-bans-13-million-from-going-outside-as-they-face-starvation-brutal-crackdowns/news-story/39e404b6c5a8693f8edbc4d564bd0f8e

There were issues in the beginning of lock-downs were the supply of food was not well regulated - nobody died of starvation as you claimed.
You simply forwarded a lie. - aka primitive propaganda.
Anyone with a bit of brain knows - as to who the media The Sun appeals to. That Western media is hell bend on twisting occurrences in regards to China is also know to everyone.
But it fits the narratives of No-nothings like you.

Just as if China media would propagate that millions of Americans are still homeless, jobless and therefore starving to death due to the US government having done shit in regards to e.g. the victims of Hurricane Catrina.

You are also unaware that the Chinese government had issued directives towards Chinese households - month ahead of it's lock-down policy - that food and drinking supplies are to be stored at home for emergencies covering a period of 1-2 weeks. There were lists handed out stating exactly as to what households were supposed to store.

 

[Mac-7]

There were issues in the beginning of lock-downs were the supply of food was not well regulated - nobody died of starvation as you claimed.
You simply forwarded a lie. - aka primitive propaganda.
You are also unaware that the Chinese government had issued directive towards Chinese households - month ahead of it's lock-down policy - that food and drinking supplies are to be stored at home for emergencies covering a period of 1-2 weeks. There were lists handed out stating exactly as to what households were supposed to store.

Like the man said, I can lead you to water but I cant make you drink

I stand by my point that china under CCP dictatorship is an inhuman state

 

[Kruska]

Like the man said, I can lead you to water but I cant make you drink

I stand by my point that china under CCP dictatorship is an inhuman state

Even though the man said; I got enough water to drink - I am not thirsty, but still you try to propagate that he is in dire need of water.

 

[Mac-7]

Even though the man said; I got enough water to drink - I am not thirsty, but still you try to propagate that he is in dire need of water.

Not being thirsty for the truth is an understatement

You just dont want to know the truth

 

[Kruska]

Yeah, likewise the Crimea and Donbas aren't nations, either. And Ukraine was recognised in its borders, including Crimea and Donbas, in 1991 by the UN and also by Russia afterwards. So, you either support territorial integrity of a state or play on the tune for the other side.

But there is presently a war (you are aware right?) - so the UN has the right to invoke polls - for the poeple living in those disputed/occupied areas to decide for themselves.

The question about regional referendums in Ukraine and a peaceful national divorce should have been brought in 2014. Before all that mess started. Now your ideas about that don't hold water at all.

That is exactly as to what I had pointed out before - the UN miserably failed in regards to Crimea - just to refute Russian claims wasn't enough - the UN had the right to demand polls to be held upon the Russian occupation of Crimea. Since it also belonged and still belongs to a sovereign UN acknowledged state.

Before you come up with Tibet again, Tibet was never ever recognized as an independent-sovereign state - since you love to dig as far as possible into history - Tibet was already ruled and controlled by the respective Chinese dynasties since the 7 century A.D. During the Manchu dynasty they were a tributary vassal state. In 1914 they were officially integrated as a province into the ROC.

Anyone who want's to, can read up all this stuff by himself - but sprouting false narrative seems to be the more popular choice amongst certain people.

 

[Kruska]

Not being thirsty for the truth is an understatement

You just dont want to know the truth

Bingo - absolutely correct - No one who actually knows about China, is interested in your propagated and distorted "truth".