krishna bound

4y

I saw reports that there were NATO convoys sending supplies and arms over into Ukraine, is this actually true/real? Has anyone else seen verified reports of this?

krishna bound

4y

china, india, and uae abstaining, interesting to abstain rather than deny veto

Y0rn

4y

Why the UAE?

krishna bound

4y

the two countries have a strategic partnership which stems all the way back to the sovie union. UAE has a history of supporting russia regionally, such as endorsing Russia's entry into the Syrian Civil War; they also have a working relationship with Russia's intervention in Libya (which most people dont know happened/is happening), and also buy a lot of weapons from them. UAE isn't clearcut themselves though in positions; I mean they technically are also allied with Saudi Arabia & Israel (lol) while having this bizarre back and forth relationship with Iran. It's more than likely (imo) the UAE abstained because of their historical relationship with Russia regionally in MENA and not wanting to alienate that since it's still ongoing even now, and Russia dropping mutual regional support would be a huge blow to their regional interests

Y0rn

4y

Yeah i asked cause they have military connections to western countries too

krishna bound

4y

basic answer is they play both sides and care more about their own regional interests than any adhering to any real coherent political philosophy otherwise (such as anti-NATO, pro-NATO, etc.)

Scratchin Mamba

4y

US benefitting from this, as they have from every (world) war in Europe throughout history.

"The United States’ role in this tragedy is as much about its relationship with its former imperial rivals, Germany, Italy, and France, as it is about its attempts to weaken Russia. These three powers, and the Europe they lead, incessantly threaten to spin out of the US orbit. Increasingly, they talk of strategic autonomy, while pursuing economic integration with Russia and China, to US dismay. Russian aggression provides the occasion to bind Europe more firmly to the United States, by rallying Europe against Russia through the US instrument of NATO, and pressing the continent to sever some economic ties with Russia. Germany will be expected to cancel the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, to its great disadvantage, since it will lose an inexpensive source of energy, and to the great advantage of the US liquid natural gas industry, which will fill the void with a more expensive product. While certification of the pipeline has only been suspended for now, Washington will continue to pressure Germany to cancel the pipeline altogether. The benefits of Russian aggression against Ukraine for the US investor class are so numerous, that champagne bottles must have popped in Washington and on Wall Street when the Russian president announced the beginning of his country’s military operation in Ukraine. European drift toward the Russian economy is eclipsed. NATO is strengthened, with indubitable benefits in new orders from NATO countries for arms from US weapons makers. Calls for more weapons purchases to bolster the US military will escalate; yesterday, for example, a Wall Street Journal op-ed demanded a naval build up. And the arms industry will run at full-tilt pumping weapons into Ukraine to fuel an insurgency, as Washington fights Russia to the last Ukrainian. Wars for which the United States has not participated except to act as an arms supplier have always been kind to the country’s investors; this one promises to be the same. Finally, Russian military operations, along with Western sanctions, will drain the Russian economy, weakening Russia, or at least stifle its growth, and make it less a formidable US rival. How could Wall Street not look with pleasure upon the prospects?"

krishna bound

4y

everyone in the world took a fat L on this except the actual US government/US intelligence which by itself is a fat L for the entire world

Scratchin Mamba

4y

How about China

krishna bound

4y

personal opinion is they could have come out on top in this but fumbled it. i posted it above and throughout the thread but there's clearly something going on internally with the party. they can't get what they want to do clear. first it's "Xi supports Russia" but then it's ambassadors saying they condemn broaches on Ukraine's sovereignty, then it's them abstaining at the UN but then reports state banks are cutting funding to Russian commodities (essentially quasi-sanctions), then the official statement is essentially "both sides are bad" while meanwhile all of their diplomats and ambassadors are interpolating between party messaging and saying they respect sovereignty and tacitly condemning Russia's actions. If they had simply kept clear and narrow messaging and took advantage of economic warfare to swoop in and bolster their own economic interest they could have 100% come out on top here, but they've fumbled the reaction for the time being and this weird back and forth fence-sitting and distinction between rhetoric and action (such as state bank sanctions) is really weird and unlike their government in recent history. I think it's shown a weakness in their geopolitical structuring which previously I don't think there were clear cracks of; given B&R and such it really seemed like their geopolitical ambitions were very structured and informed and this seems to have put a hole in that.
if there are any countries that probably came out stronger from this though it's India, Israel, and Turkey imo

Mando

4y

Looking like this gonna really blow up in Putins face

Scratchin Mamba

4y

Tbh the main reason i thought he wouldnt do it is bc of this

Putin not as bright as i thought he was

krishna bound

4y

personal opinion is they could have come out on top in this but fumbled it. i posted it above and throughout the thread but there's clearly something going on internally with the party. they can't get what they want to do clear. first it's "Xi supports Russia" but then it's ambassadors saying they condemn broaches on Ukraine's sovereignty, then it's them abstaining at the UN but then reports state banks are cutting funding to Russian commodities (essentially quasi-sanctions), then the official statement is essentially "both sides are bad" while meanwhile all of their diplomats and ambassadors are interpolating between party messaging and saying they respect sovereignty and tacitly condemning Russia's actions. If they had simply kept clear and narrow messaging and took advantage of economic warfare to swoop in and bolster their own economic interest they could have 100% come out on top here, but they've fumbled the reaction for the time being and this weird back and forth fence-sitting and distinction between rhetoric and action (such as state bank sanctions) is really weird and unlike their government in recent history. I think it's shown a weakness in their geopolitical structuring which previously I don't think there were clear cracks of; given B&R and such it really seemed like their geopolitical ambitions were very structured and informed and this seems to have put a hole in that.
if there are any countries that probably came out stronger from this though it's India, Israel, and Turkey imo

Legendary

4y

BRI itself has exposed many faults in the party too though

maxx

4y

Thoughts?

krishna bound

4y

china's public facing opinion on this could not be more unclear, they are not doing themselves any favors. like every single chinese ambassador and politician seems to interpolate between supporting russia and not