China's promotion of Russian disinformation indicates where its loyalties lie - CNN
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Simone McCarthy and CNN's Beijing Bureau
Updated 10:23 AM ET, Thu March 10, 2022
Beijing (CNN)In public statements and at international summits, Chinese officials have attempted to stake out a seemingly neutral position on the war in Ukraine, neither condemning Russian actions nor ruling out the possibility Beijing could act as a mediator in a push for peace.
But while its international messaging has kept many guessing as to Beijing's true intentions, much of its domestic media coverage of Russia's invasion tells a wholly different story. There, an alternate reality is playing out for China's 1.4 billion people, one in which the invasion is nothing more than a "special military operation," according to its national broadcaster CCTV; the United States may be funding a biological weapons program in Ukraine, and Russian President Vladimir Putin is a victim standing up for a beleaguered Russia. To tell that story, major state-run news media outlets -- which dominate China's highly censored media space -- have been largely echoing Russian state media stories or information from Russian officials. A CNN analysis reviewed nearly 5,000 social media posts from 14 Chinese state media outlets during the first eight days of Russia's invasion posted onto China's Twitter-like platform, Weibo. The analysis found that of the more than 300 most-shared posts about the events in Ukraine -- which were each shared more than 1,000 times -- almost half, about 140, were what CNN classified as distinctly pro-Russian, often containing information attributed to a Russian official or picked up directly from Russia's state media. Read More The analysis, which focused on stories that got the most play on social media, may not be representative of all posts shared by state media outlets on Weibo. But it provides a snapshot of the state media-produced information that is most visible to the more than half a billion monthly users on the popular platform. It's not clear the extent to which these posts may be explicitly the result of a coordinated propaganda campaign between the two countries, but it is consistent with an ongoing pattern in which Russian and Chinese media have amplified and reinforced their often-interchangeable talking points on issues such as the treatment of Russian dissidents, Hong Kong pro-democracy protests, the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic, or the supposed American role in fomenting "color revolutions" against authoritarian regimes. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping walk down the stairs as they arrive for a BRICS summit in Brasilia, Brazil in 2019. Such mutual reinforcement has also spilled over into the extensive overseas and English-language propaganda operations that both countries have built to promote their views globally -- a route made more important with Russia's state media outlets being banned on air and online in parts of the West. In China's top-down government-controlled media environment, all state-affiliated content is vetted and issued in accordance with government directives. That China has chosen to follow Russia's lead in deliberately mischaracterizing the war only serves to underline Beijing's closeness to Moscow -- and almost makes a mockery of China's self-proclaimed impartiality in helping to engage with Russia and bring an end to the violence.
The playbook
Russian assurances that civilian sites will not be targeted -- despite extensive evidence to the contrary, descriptions of Ukrainian soldiers using "Nazi" tactics, and misinformation regarding the whereabouts of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are all stories that have been funneled from Russian sources into China's enclosed social media ecosystem -- where many Western news outlets are blocked -- by its state media outlets in recent days. That dynamic was at play on Monday morning, when China's state broadcaster CCTV released a package in its morning newscast highlighting Moscow's erroneous claim that Washington had funded the development of biological weapons in Ukrainian labs. That insinuation is used to support the narrative that Ukraine -- characterized by Moscow as an American puppet state -- threatens Russia, and not the other way around. The source? Russian Defense Ministry Spokesman Igor Konashenkov, who on Sunday said Russian forces uncovered "evidence" of the "hasty measures to conceal any traces of the military biological program finance(d) by the US Department of Defense," and referenced documents he said detailed the destruction of hazardous pathogens at these facilities on the order of the Ukrainian Health Ministry. In a statement on Twitter Wednesday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki pushed back on "Russia's false claims about alleged US biological weapons labs and chemical weapons development in Ukraine" and noted the "echoing" of those "conspiracy theories" by Chinese officials. "This is preposterous. It's the kind of disinformation operation we've seen repeatedly from the Russians over the years in Ukraine and in other countries, which have been debunked, and an example of the types of false pretexts we have been warning the Russians would invent," Psaki said, adding that the US was "in full compliance" with its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention and "does not develop or possess such weapons anywhere." "Now that Russia has made these false claims, and China has seemingly endorsed this propaganda, we should all be on the lookout for Russia to possibly use chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine, or to create a false flag operation using them. It's a clear pattern," Psaki said. The subject was also raised in a Senate hearing on Tuesday, when Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, asked if Ukraine had biological weapons, said it has biological research facilities, which the US was concerned Russian forces may be seeking to control. "We are working with the Ukrainians on how they can prevent any of those research materials from falling into the hands of Russian forces, should they approach," Nuland said. Residents watch a TV screen showing news about Ukraine at a shopping mall in Hangzhou, in China's eastern Zhejiang province on February 25, 2022. Minutes after the CCTV report aired, an affiliated news outlet released an online post repeating the claims from Russia's Defense Ministry and started a related hashtag on Weibo, which began trending. The hashtag was viewed more than 45 million times over a period of hours that day. The next day, after Russia doubled down on the biological weapons claims with further statements, without evidence, CCTV released a new television segment, which was again shared by prominent state media outlets on Weibo, gaining further traction. The story then moved into the narrative of China's officials when a state media reporter at a regular Foreign Ministry press briefing asked a question about the laboratories, prompting the spokesperson to read a lengthy prepared response that repeated Russian disinformation. "We once again urge the US to fully clarify its biological militarization activities both inside and outside its borders and accept multilateral verification," spokesperson Zhao Lijian said. Within hours, at least 17 state media outlets, including CCTV, Xinhua, and the People's Daily, posted Zhao's response on Weibo, where the topic racked up more than 210 million views. A related hashtag rose to be the top trending topic on Weibo by the following afternoon. The pattern is just one example of a playbook that enables China to cover the war through the lens of Russian rhetoric and disinformation. Other examples include stories, such as repeated false claims that Zelensky fled the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv -- sourced to a single Russian lawmaker, which were picked up and amplified by both Chinese and Russian state media outlets on their domestic and international platforms. A CNN analysis sought to understand how large a role such stories play in China's tightly controlled media ecosystem, first by combing through nearly 5,000 social media posts from the Weibo accounts of 14 of China's most influential state media outlets, focusing on the first eight days of the invasion and news about the events in Ukraine. Next, CNN analyzed which of those posts were the most highly engaged with, identifying more than 300 posts shared on Weibo more than 1,000 times. Of those more than 300 posts, an analysis found that nearly half showed Russia in a positive light -- a category CNN defined as news sourced solely from Russian officials or Russian media, content that describes Ukraine negatively, misinformation about Zelensky, or pro-Putin coverage. While about 140 posts showed Russia in a positive light, the analysis identified fewer than 15 posts that portrayed Ukraine positively. A look at other characterizations showed only around 90 of these posts were neutral -- for example, purely factual reports from reliable sources, news about humanitarian aid or updates on the evacuation of Chinese citizens from Ukraine. Just over a third were what CNN classified as anti-West or anti-US, for example: stories airing views that Russia was pushed to action in Ukraine by the expansion of NATO, or criticizing Western media coverage of the crisis. CNN reporters classified some posts into more than one category. A look at the distribution shows posts that depicted Russia in a positive light were more frequent than any other category. Because CNN only studied posts with high engagement, the findings may not be representative of all posts produced by state media. In response to CNN's request for comment, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said Thursday the country is a victim of disinformation. "Some anti-China forces and media have fabricated too many lies, rumors and disinformation about China on issues that include the situation in Ukraine," it said in a statement. "They have smeared the image of China, poisoned the media environment and misled public worldwide. Such actions are hypocritical and despicable."
The backdrop
The findings contrast the apparent middle line that China has tried to walk in its international diplomacy. Though Beijing has stood apart from the Western response to Russia's invasion, with its diplomats refusing to condemn the invasion, or even call it such, and decrying Western sanctions, it has also frequently repeated that "all countries' legitimate security concerns" should be addressed. In a virtual summit with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Tuesday, Chinese leader Xi Jinping called for negotiations to bring about "peaceful outcomes" and stressed China's promises to contribute humanitarian aid to Ukraine. "There is a difference between the way China talks to the international audience and the way it talks to the domestic audience ... for the domestic audience, it's important to preserve this partnership with Russia, because that's a political priority for Xi," said Alexander Gabuev, a senior fellow and the chair of the Russia in the Asia-Pacific Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center. He points to the increasingly close relationship between China and Russia in recent years, a strategic partnership strengthened, in part, by shared friction with the West. "So (China's leaders) need to shape public perceptions about this, and explain why dealing with Russia is morally justified or is the right thing to do -- and (China's media coverage) serves this purpose," he said. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian at a daily media briefing in Beijing, China, March 19, 2021. A glimpse into how China may seek to control its coverage was given in the days prior to the invasion, when an internal directive that was apparently accidentally shared on social media showed Chinese state media outlet Beijing News ordered its employees not to publish news reports that were "negative about Russia or pro-West." Beijing News did not respond to requests for comment. Maria Repnikova, director of the Center for Global Information Studies at Georgia State University, said Russia-leaning coverage was in line with historical precedent: "Stories that are critical of Russia or are portraying Russia in an unfavorable manner are generally censored," she said. "As a result of that, it is expedient to use Russian state media sources because they're the ones portraying the (Ukraine) conflict with a more favorable eye or view from the Russian perspective," she said. Another sign of this has been which voices have been allowed to thrive on China's heavily censored social media platforms in the wake of the invasion. There, pro-Russia and anti-Western, nationalistic voices have also dominated, while there has been a suppression of pro-Ukrainian or anti-war messages on platforms and across the media landscape. One glaring example came Friday, when CCTV broadcast a speech from International Paralympic Committee President Andrew Parsons, at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Paralympic Games, in which many parts of the speech were muffled and were not translated. The offending context? Parsons' "message of peace," in which he did not name Russia or Ukraine but said he was "horrified at what is taking place in the world." Those voices from within China who have tried to speak up -- including five history professors who penned an open letter voicing their strong opposition to "Russia's war against Ukraine" -- have seen their posts swiftly deleted or social accounts suspended. "We have seen alternative, critical voices -- some subtle critique or attempts to present scenes from the war zone and talk about humanity and empathy toward Ukraine -- (but) a lot of these messages have been censored," said Repnikova. Social media platforms in China have taken action against extremist nationalist voices in recent weeks, with Sina Weibo "punishing" around 75 accounts and screening out more than 1,500 posts and video-streaming platform Douyin removing over 6,000 illegal videos, according to the state-owned Global Times. But the nationalistic voices that have dominated social media platforms fall in line with what Repnikova describes as "a significant spike in digital nationalism, (with) the US and the West (as) the key target of this nationalistic sentiment."
Break the monopoly
That nationalist sentiment -- fueled by a deep distrust of the US and concern about its role as the leading global power -- are a critical part of the glue that has firmed up the Russian and Chinese relationship in recent years. It's also filtered in the kinds of media coverage that each have shared overseas, as both Russia and China have sought to deepen their propaganda efforts, launching social media-friendly news brands in English and other languages, like China's CGTN and RT (formerly Russia Today). While experts say it's unclear if top media officials from the two countries are discussing news coverage at an operational level and some official coordination is more symbolic in nature, there is a growing push in recent years for alignment and content-sharing. A large Ukrainian flag with the slogan "We Stand With Ukraine" written on it in Chinese characters is seen on the outside wall of the Canadian Embassy on March 1, 2022 in Beijing, China. A number of content-sharing arrangements exist between Chinese and Russian media outlets, and the shared vision is clear: these outlets together can "break the monopoly of Western media," as a Global Times report on a China-Russia media forum in 2015 put it. Fast-forward to the crisis in Ukraine and the upside of that collaboration, for one partner anyway, is clear. In the European Union, Kremlin-backed media outlets RT and Sputnik were officially banned as of last Wednesday, with companies like Meta, parent of Facebook and Instagram, and Google's YouTube stepping in to block their content. But, on China's channels like CGTN and Global Times, which continue to operate, those Russian talking points are still getting through. Already this week, posts from those accounts have suggested Ukraine and the US have pro-Nazi leanings, repeated Russian misinformation on the laboratories, and cited Russia denying that it plans to overthrow the existing government in its "special military operation" in Ukraine.
How CNN reported this story:
Since international reporting is a highly controlled and regulated industry in China, only a select number of state media organizations, such as Xinhua and CCTV, have permission to report international news. For this story, we selected 14 Chinese media accounts with nearly or more than 10 million followers on Weibo, a Twitter-like platform that reaches more than half a billion monthly users and is popular in China. These accounts included major outlets such as Xinhua, China News Service, CCTV, the People's Daily, and the Global Times. We collected all of the posts related to Russia or Ukraine via a keyword search published by these accounts between February 24 and March 3, the first eight days of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
We then examined posts that were shared more than 1,000 times and evaluated each of these — more than 300 — about their political preference. Reporters classified posts as neutral, pro-Russia, pro-Ukraine, anti-US/West and pro-China. Posts were sometimes categorized in multiple categories, such as pro-Russian and anti-West. We analyzed the source and wording of the news stories to determine their categories.
Because the analysis focused on stories that got the most play on the highly-controlled social media platform, CNN's findings may not be representative of of all posts shared by state media outlets on Weibo.
Tags
Who is online
436 visitors
US Social Media should ban foreign propagandists!
Comparing Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler is rather idiotic. [ deleted ]
Vladimir Putin is the new Joseph Stalin. Hitler was a coward who killed himself in a bunker because he couldn't face Stalin. Don't remain ignorant. This was our ally; the face of true evil.
Idiotic? Not wrong in your opinion but idiotic??
Both Putin and Hitler instigated war to grow their empires. Both lied to their people (profoundly) while doing so. Both seem to have little compassion for the people they kill.
There certainly are plenty of differences but making the comparison of Putin to Hitler is certainly not idiotic.
Hitler committed suicide to avoid being captured. Had nothing to do with Stalin alone.
Yes that comparison has merits. Putin has not shown brutality at the level of Stalin, but indications are that he is capable of this.
It is easy to compare one authoritarian raging war with others who did likewise. The comparison will be flawed (as are all) but certainly not idiotic.
How do you think Stalin brought Poland into the USSR?
Stalin was aggressively nonaggressive. Stalin got to annex portions of Poland for agreeing to be nonaggressive. The Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939 annexed portions of Poland that are now part of Ukraine and Belarus. That's what Putin has done with Ukraine; just as Stalin did with Poland. Putin is following Stalin's example; not Hitler's example. Putin is reclaiming territory that Russia ceded to Ukraine during the Soviet era.
Biden chose to be passively aggressive. That wasn't the only choice Biden had available.
Comparing Putin to Hitler is more than just wrong; it's an idiotic comparison. Comparing Putin to Hitler is the type of disinformation the seed is talking about.
Non sequitur. I note a similarity with Hitler and you note a similarity with Stalin.
How did Biden get into this now?
Your 'argument' has been that Putin is better compared with Stalin; you have made no argument whatsoever that backs up your claim that the Hitler comparison is idiotic.
From almost a year ago, April, 2021.
Putin began the process of detente with a threat which is the old normal of relations between Russia and the United States. Biden ignored the situation for a year. Putin has been ratcheting up the threat and Biden has continued to ignore the situation. The invasion of Ukraine may be the slowest blitzkrieg in history.
Facts don't matter? I provided a link and explained that Putin is following Stalin's example described in that link.
Show where Putin has invoked a political ideology of racial purity and demanded extermination of inferior races. Show where Putin has persuaded people that Russians are the master race.
If the comparison between Putin and Hitler is based upon an invasion then a comparing Putin with William McKinley (25th POTUS) would be just as apt.
Comparing Putin to Hitler is based upon Hitler's invasion of Poland, isn't it? Hitler staged a false flag incident to justify invading Poland. Poland is the reason for the comparison so cannot be a non sequitur.
Volodymyr Zelensky escalated the situation in 2019 by requesting Javelin anti-tank missiles. Trump withholding the Javelin missiles was part of the first impeachment. The United States Congress wanted a war with Russia in 2019. Democrats wanted to force a confrontation between Trump and Putin. Democrats got the confrontation they wanted but it's the wrong President. And Biden isn't up to the challenge.
There isn't any false flag. This has been a slow motion crisis created by Zelensky and the US Congress.
Of course facts matter. But the facts need to support the argument. You claim that a comparison of Putin to Hitler is idiotic. I acknowledge that a comparison with Stalin has merit and also note that a comparison to Hitler is NOT idiotic since there are indeed clear points of comparison.
Your argument that the comparison to Hitler is idiotic is to simply continue to compare Putin to Stalin. That is a non-sequitor. You are dodging the direct challenge to illustrate why a comparison of Putin to Hilter is idiotic. Note, Nerm, the comparison to Stalin is better than the comparison to Hitler. Now show why the comparison to Hitler is idiotic.
Look:
Amy: Comparing an apple to a peach is idiotic. The comparison should be an apple to a pear.
Bob: Why is the apple to peach comparison idiotic?
Amy: Apples and pears have very similar textures.
Amy points out a valid similarity between apples and pears but totally fails to illustrate why the comparison of apples to peaches is idiotic.
Do the rest of the math on your own.
Are you offended for Hitler or for Purin now?
And you continue to ignore my responses explaining why comparing Putin to Hitler is idiotic.
Putin has not promoted racial purity, a master race, or described Ukrainians as an inferior race. Putin invoked historical and cultural connections between Russians and Ukrainians fighting for independence. Putin chose a side in a Ukrainian civil war. And the facts are on Putin's side; Russia did cede Crimea and the Donbas region to Ukraine during the Soviet era.
I have provide quite a bit of information that demonstrates comparing Putin to Hitler is idiotic. You've provided no explanation why a comparison between Putin and Hitler is accurate. The only thing you've done is ignore my responses and simply repeat the claim the comparison is not idiotic.
I've supported my argument which you have ignored. Now support your argument if you can.
You have not offered any. All you do is argue that the comparison with Stalin is better.
Claiming that Stalin is a better comparison than Hitler is NOT supporting your claim that a comparison with Hitler is IDIOTIC.
I have not claimed that. I have claimed that a comparison with Hitler is NOT IDIOTIC.
Focus on the objection that you made. Arguing that a comparison with Stalin is better than a comparison to Hitler is not an argument that the comparison to Hitler is IDIOTIC.
I'm offended that Democrats tried to force a confrontation between Trump and Putin and are being let off the hook because Biden can't handle the confrontation they wanted. Democrats telling Americans 'it's Putin's fault' is an outright lie. Democrats wanted this confrontation. Democrats got the confrontation they wanted. The damage being done to the United States is definitely not Putin's fault.
Democrats were only thinking about the next election. Democrats won. Now Democrats don't like what they won. Maybe Democrats should have thought a little more about the consequences. Democrats' only priority is to win the next election. And Democrats have a need to blame scapegoats for winning. Didn't Democrats know that arming Ukraine to fight a civil war on Russia's border would escalate? Or did Democrats just ignore Russia to win an election?
How is it residing in that alternate reality??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Putin hasn't done anything that Hitler did. Making a comparison between Putin and Hitler is nothing more than idiotic disinformation.
Vladimir Putin has nothing in common with Adolf Hitler. A comparison between two things that have nothing in common is idiotic, isn't it?
And now we are back to my opening comment where I noted that making a comparison to Hitler is not IDIOTIC because there are indeed points of comparison:
Real easy Nerm. One can certainly argue that a comparison to Stalin is better than a comparison to Hitler. I have no objection to that argument. My objection is that you characterized JBB's comparison to Hitler as idiotic. As if JBB was an idiot to make such a comparison.
My point is that it is certainly not an IDIOTIC comparison since there are indeed solid points of comparison. It is clearly not an IDIOTIC comparison. An idiotic comparison would be like comparing Putin's recent actions to those of Gorbachev or to FDR.
You get that, right?
Putin is instigating a war to grow an empire? Putin has lied to his people? Putin is not waging compassionate war?
No, your arguments don't support your claim. If the points you've cited are the basis for comparison then Biden can be compared to Hitler. Any politician can be compared to Hitler. The comparison is so general that it becomes meaningless idiocy.
Apples and oranges are both fruit that grow on trees. So apples and oranges really can be compared, too. You are arguing that an apples and oranges comparison is NOT idiotic by using sweeping generalizations.
You have not supported your point and you have not refuted my argument. You've failed.
Biden instigated a war to grow his empire based on lies and brutal, heartless killing of people??
Biden is using a war to expand NATO and increase the influence of the United States in Europe by allowing people to be killed and refugees to flood into NATO countries. Biden is using US influence to confront and isolate Russia with economic measures that will force NATO countries to make difficult choices and significant sacrifices with the uncertain promise of destabilizing the Russian economy and toppling the Putin government.
Biden could have, at least, attempted to negotiate to diffuse the crisis that had been growing since 2019. Biden could have requested the UN step in to diffuse the situation that had been escalating since 2019. Biden could have called for a political process to resolve the civil war in Ukraine. Biden could have pressured the Zelensky government to deescalate the war in Donbas. Biden could have recognized Russia's claim on Crimea since Russia won't give up Crimea anyway.
You just cannot focus. Did Biden instigate a war? NO. So he could not possibly also grow his empire via a war based on lies and brutal killing of people.
Get a grip, Nerm.
You start off by deeming a comparison of Putin to Hitler to be idiotic and refuse to show why that is idiotic. Instead you simply argue why the comparison to Stalin is a better choice. (Well it is a better comparison but that does not make the comparison to Hitler idiotic).
Now you have moved the goalpost to Biden and in this case instead of showing how Biden instigated a war to grow his empire based on lies and brutal, heartless killing of people (which is impossible for you justify) you start ragging on Biden.
Your version of Gish Gallop baffle with bullshit approach is dishonest. It does not substitute for directly addressing the challenges made to you.
Only because a comparison of Putin to Hitler is idiotic.
You asked.
You asked for an explanation of why a comparison of Putin to Hitler is idiotic. Your refusal to address that explanation doesn't alter the fact that comparing Putin to Hitler is idiotic.
You simply argued that a comparison to Stalin is better. Clearly you cannot support your claim.
[Deleted] Because these sentiments expressed by you here, are straight out of the mouth of Putin (paraphrased of course).
I live in rural southeastern Minnesota (which hasn't been a secret). Where do you live?
I live in California. But I have seen reports of the things Putin has said about Ukraine and you echo them very closely. Just makes me wonder.
By the way, I don’t understand why my comment in 2.1.20 was ticketed for taunting. I was doing no such thing. It was an honest question, which you answered by the way. There have been examples of other members who live in a certain place and defend the leadership there. It’s a natural kind of bias.
Anyway, I thought we weren’t supposed to be flagging things we respond to. Has that gone away?
You live in California but ...? Yes, Putin presented political spin supported by claims. And trying to address political spin requires researching the supporting claims. My research (supported by information and citations from western sources, which I have been posting) showed that the claims Putin used were based on verifiable facts and not fictions. Putin's political spin is still just political spin for his own purposes. But Putin's political spin or Putin's political purpose doesn't mean the verifiable facts have no merit.
Bottom line, the Soviets are killing each other. Let them. Kyiv is just as bad as the Kremlin. There aren't any good guys in this war. We don't need to be involved.
Wasn't me. I didn't flag your comment.
As usual, you've jumped to a conclusion according to a natural bias. And that natural bias is to slander, allege, accuse, and attack. I've grown accustomed to it. If I had flagged your comment then nothing would have been done about it.
As usual? WTF are you talking about? In this case, I didn’t jump to a conclusion. I was suspicious of potential bias and investigated it by asking a question. I didn’t conclude anything.
Not from me, you haven’t.
Yet you and Nerm are in Trump's gop. Why?
Slowly they turn. Step by step. Inch by inch...
I am? That’s news to me. I have no idea what Nerm’s politics are. I don’t pay that much attention.
President Biden has revived the Cold War policy approach of confrontation and isolation put in place by Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. For Biden's revival of the Cold War policies to work it will be necessary to increase defense spending and directly confront China (and Russia). Sanctions and isolation from the western economies were a significant policy imperative during the Cold War.
President Biden's revival of Cold War policy will require that we Make America Great Again.
If anyone is reigniting the Cold War it is Vlad Putin!
How can Germany maintain government funded social programs, increase defense spending, pay higher energy costs, and continue to monetarily support the European Union?
Germany will likely have to return to using coal for electricity generation. Germany abandoned nuclear energy. And Germany will need to construct terminals and storage facilities for imported natural gas. Deploying alternatives like wind and solar can't be accomplished that quickly and will only deepen Germany's dependence upon foreign suppliers. Germany is going to face very difficult decisions in the near term.
The revived emphasis on Cold War policies of confront and isolate carries a risk of destabilizing the European Union. (The EU was created during the period dissolution of the USSR and Glasnost; not during the Cold War.) Energy costs in the EU are going to increase dramatically in the near term and it isn't possible to speed a transition to other sources.
Everyone seems to happily ignore that the Cold War policies of confront and isolate also isolated Europe to some extent. That's why the United States became the world's superpower police force. The EU really was created to challenge the superpower hegemony of the United States since the USSR was no longer a threat.
None of these issues (and many more that have not been included) have anything to do with Putin. Biden's revival of the Cold War policies of confront and isolate will reverberate into the US foreign affairs concerning the Middle East, South America, and Southeast Asia. China will pursue its own interests now just as it did during the Cold War; China is not on the side of Russia or the United States.
People need to become aware of how Biden has changed global geopolitical policies. Biden has upended the last 50 years of detente. And there's no going back now.
Very true, but I am sure they can and will do it.
So far the exact opposite has been true. The Russians decided to reignite Cold War tensions when they decided that the Ukrainians do not get to make their own decisions. Now the Eu seems more stable and unified than ever, and Germany has done a complete 180 on their defense policy. Putin has achieved the exact opposite of what he wanted by not only unifying the EU and NATO, but sending a clear message to Russia's neighbors that the Russians cannot be trusted, and of course encouraging Germany to rerarm.
Not true. The EU began decades before and grew into what it is today.
Yes they will. I hope the Europeans are ready to deal with it. I know you don't, that would be bad for Putin, but that is my hope.
Considering Europe is home to some of the wealthiest, and most stable countries on the planet, I think they did okay.
Complete and utter fucking nonsense. The EU was created as an economic pact among European nations to prevent a war like WW2 from happening again. The idea was to make Europe so interconnected economically (primarily), socially, and culturally that declaring war on one country was declaring war on yourself. The US has generally fully supported the EU, and has not really taken any hostile positions towards it on most anything. There is almost zero animosity between the US and the EU and many members of the EU are also NATO members which means they are part of a military alliance with the US. The risk of war between the US and EU is 0.
Your version of "history" is total bullshit.
I think you mean Putin's outright hostility to the West, NATO, the EU, and the US boiling over into open war in the Ukraine will have implications around the world.
They are definitely more supportive of Russia, but honestly I think they are looking to make Russia more a client state than anything.
Lol please. If anything he has simply led a continuation of post WW2 policies. Putin decided to invade the Ukraine, not Biden. Putin decided to bring war back to Europe, not Biden. Putin is making NBC threats, not Biden.
That is what Putin's media is telling Russians.
Americans are not so susceptible to bullshit.
That misses the point entirely. Putin's invasion of Ukraine did not dictate Biden's response. Biden had several options. Biden chose to commit the United States and NATO to a policy of confrontation and isolation without pre-conditions. Biden's commitment to a policy of confrontation and isolation doesn't go away when Russia is finished with Ukraine.
If the United States does not keep its commitments to Biden's chosen course of action then the resolve to maintain sanctions and economically isolate Russia will weaken. It would be far easier and much less painful for Germany to continue using Russian fossil fuels. Germany wanted Nord Stream 2 for Germany's benefit. The United States can't walk away now. The United States must increase support for NATO and the EU to maintain the political resolve for continuing sanctions and economically isolating Russia. Biden won't be able to keep the sanctions in place by simply brow beating NATO members.
The USSR was gone. The Soviet republics were independent. Germany was reunified. There was no longer a Soviet threat. Europe believed they did not need to rely so heavily upon the United States. Yes, the EU was created as an economic pact. But the purpose of the EU was to become economically independent and lessen the influence of the United States in Europe. The creation of the European Union ended the occupation of Europe by the United States since WWII.
The United States may support the EU. But the United States will never be part of the EU and cannot directly influence the EU. Brexit demonstrated the inability of the United States to influence the EU.
But Putin did not dictate Biden's response. How long did we hear the Biden administration warn that Putin was planning to invade Ukraine? The invasion of Ukraine wasn't a surprise. Biden committed to a course of action before Russia entered Ukraine. What did Biden do to diffuse the situation before Putin invaded Ukraine?
You really think he is brow beating NATO members? From what I can see, they are responding to Russia’s aggression by enthusiastically imposing sanctions. Russia is a far more immediate threat to Europe than it is to the US, so they didn’t need to be pushed into reacting.
I’m confused now. You just indicated that the US was pushing the EU into sanctioning Russia, but now you seem to be saying we don’t have that power.
What was Biden supposed to do in response to Russia’s invasion? Ignore it?
No, he committed to a response in the event that Russia did invade. It seems like common sense to me that we should be prepared to react to aggression in a specific way. Are you suggesting they should have waited to consider all possible options until later?
I think we could always argue that more negotiations could have taken place sooner, but remember that Russia has been in Ukraine since 2014 - just not as overtly or dramatically. I’m curious what you think could have stopped this.
What happens when Russia leaves Ukraine? And Putin will withdraw from Ukraine. Will European resolve weaken without continued pressure from the United States?
That is incorrect. Europe understands that sanctions and isolation won't prevent Russia from attacking NATO countries. Putin has committed around 15 pct of Russia's military to the invasion of Ukraine. Russia experiencing 50,000 casualties in Ukraine would be about 5 pct of Russia's military capability. And Russia's most advanced weaponry hasn't been used in Ukraine.
Russia won't leave Ukraine as a defeated country with a depleted capability to conduct war. The situation is unlike defeated Germany following WWI or WWII. An attempt by Ukraine or NATO to recapture territory in eastern Ukraine will be an attack on Russia and Russia retains capability to prosecute a more expansive war.
Russia was in Ukraine before Great Britain fought the Crimean War in the 1850s. Ukraine belonged to the Tsars. The Black Sea has been Russia's for over two centuries. Ignoring the historical and cultural importance of Ukraine, particularly Crimea, to Russia isn't a viable starting point for resolving the conflict.
Ukraine has historically belonged to Russia. So, Russian security concerns are not irrelevant. Russian demands that NATO not be allowed into Ukraine aren't unreasonable. What NATO has been attempting to do in Ukraine would be similar to separating Wales and Scotland from England.
How did Kennedy handle the Cuban missile crisis? Diffusing the Cuban missile crisis wasn't accomplished by confronting the USSR and attempting to decapitate its government. The process of detente has been based upon either the United States or Russia (and the Soviets before Russia) creating a crisis followed by diffusing the crisis with talks. That has been the diplomatic relationship between Russia (and the Soviets) since the end of WWII. Detente is more than making treaties; detente involves threats and counter-threats as incentives to diffuse situations. That's where the bumper sticker 'peace through strength' came from.
Maybe that incoherent rambling stream of subconsciousness makes sense in some other galaxy on the other side of the Milkey Way, butt not here on Earth Nerm. Not here on earth...
Really? Another thing to consider is the prospect that Biden will seize Russian national assets as war reparations. In that situation it would be to Putin's advantage to occupy Ukraine and establish a puppet government.
In a confrontational position Putin would likely see an advantage in strengthening ties with Turkey, Syria, and Iran. That would also be an incentive to move into northern Iraq and control Iraqi oil. Putin could seek an accommodation with the Kurds (using Turkey as a threat) with a promise of an autonomous, independent Kurdish republic. Or Putin could assist Iran in taking control of northern Iraq. Threatening the global oil supply would be to Russia's advantage in a confrontation.
Apparently Biden is using economic isolation in an attempt to foment a popular uprising in Russia and decapitate the government. That would destabilize Russia and the likely result would be civil war between hard line factions in Russia. What would emerge from a Russian civil war could be much, much worse than Putin. History doesn't suggest that Russia would become a liberal western democracy.
You are overthinking it to ridiculous extremes.
If my comments are 'overthinking to a ridiculous extreme' then we are in serious trouble.
What happens if Ukraine retains its independence and is admitted into NATO? Besides rebuilding, the Ukrainian military will need to be armed, equipped, and trained to NATO standards. Any part of the Ukrainian defense industries that have survived will need to retool to NATO standards. How long do you think that will require?
Poland still utilizes old Soviet equipment after being a member of NATO for 23 years. Biden didn't overthink Poland transferring MiGs to Ukraine and the Poles outsmarted Biden. And Biden backed down. If Biden can be outsmarted by Poland then why should we think Biden is up the challenge of confronting Putin?
We're gonna need a lot more overthinking.
I guess I’d say we all live happily ever after. You make it sound like Russia leaving Ukraine would be a problem. You also seem pretty certain they will, which tells me you have confidence that the US/European response will be effective. Sounds pretty good.
We have been dealing with an aggressive Russia for almost 80 years. Resolve has held up pretty well. And when Russia invaded its neighbor, Europe responded. So I don’t know where your doubt is coming from.
I don’t know what it was you think I said that was incorrect and you didn’t say.
First, I don’t think Europe is using sanctions and isolation to prevent Russia from attacking NATO. They’re using them to encourage Russia to leave Ukraine.
And anyway, Ukraine is not a NATO country, so I don’t think it’s useful to compare the situations. The thing preventing Russia from attacking a NATO country is the NATO treaty and the certain threat of counterattack from all NATO countries. Russia would never survive such strength, and Putin knows it.
NATO has made it very plain that they have no intention of trying to recapture territory anywhere in Ukraine. I think it would be helpful if you didn’t keep trying to conflate Ukraine and NATO.
I don’t think I ever said they were. I have no problem with us talking to Russia about their security concerns. However, there is one very important thing that should not be forgotten, and perhaps Russia needs to be reminded of it: Neither NATO nor any NATO country has ever made any attempt to invade Russia. Russia doesn’t have a real security problem with Europe or the US other than what exists in their paranoid minds.
It’s entirely unreasonable. Russia doesn’t get to tell other countries who they can be friends with. Such a demand is juvenile. Maybe if Russia worked harder at making friends instead of controlling other countries at the point of a gun, they could be members of NATO themselves.
That is kinda ridiculous, I gotta say. You’re talking apples and orangutans. There is no comparison to be made.
Wales and Scotland have been part of the United Kingdom (and Great Britain before that) for well, centuries - but more importantly, they remain so. Ukraine is not part of Russia right now, and hasn’t been for 30 years. What’s more, Russia long ago recognized Ukraine as a sovereign, independent country - even before the United States. Boris Yeltsin recognized Ukraine on December 2, 1991. So it’s pretty much bullshit for a Russian president to go around pretending Ukraine is part of Russia all these years later.
The Soviet Union dissolved on its own. Ukraine became independent on its own. NATO did not separate Ukraine from Russia, and they are not currently engaged in anything like that.
I appreciate when you debate so cogently.
Why is it necessary to slice and dice comments to destroy context?
You do realize that the United States escalated the war in Donbas in 2019 by supplying Javelin anti-tank missiles to the Zelensky government? Remember that Trump withholding the Javelin missiles authorized by Congress was part of the first impeachment. That really was an opening overture for the process of detente with Russia. The process of detente established before dissolution of the USSR consisted of threat, counter threat, and negotiation to diffuse the crisis. The Cuban missile crisis established the precedent.
The Ukrainian separatists had held the Ukrainian military to a stalemate in the Donbas region for eight years. The United States made a provocative move by supplying the Zelensky government with lethal military assistance that shifted the balance of power and destabilized the situation. The Zelensky government was responsible for raising concerns about a Russian invasion in 2019. That provocative escalation by the US not surprisingly elicited a response from Russia. The threat of Russian invasion was the justification for the US escalation in 2019.
There wasn't any indication that Putin intended to maintain a Russian presence in Ukraine. Putin wanted to partition Ukraine for the purpose of protecting Russian control of the Black Sea and Crimea. Escalation by the US and NATO intrusion into Ukraine threatened Russian control of the Black Sea and Crimea. Putin's conditions were announced well before the invasion and included points that could obviously be conceded. That's how negotiations work.
Russia had been conducting military exercises in Belarus and Russia since July, 2021. Those military exercises were close enough to the borders to suggest a threat but not close enough to represent an eminent threat. The Biden administration, NATO, and the EU had seven months to either begin negotiations or prepare for a military confrontation with Russia. Putin increased the threat gradually by moving Russia forces closer to the border. There was plenty of time to negotiate to diffuse the situation. Putin's slow motion increase of threat indicates that is what Putin wanted, negotiations to diffuse the crisis. Putin certainly did not rush to war.
The fate of Ukraine was determined in 2019 with the US provocative escalation. Democrats certainly wanted to force a confrontation between Trump and Putin. Democrats had claimed there was a connection during the 2016 election. The Zelensky government in Ukraine figured prominently in the impeachment of Trump. But Biden's refusal to intervene has likely been influenced by his own problematic connection with Ukraine. Biden refusing to negotiate with Putin and failing to prepare for a military confrontation with Russia has essentially killed two political birds with one stone. Biden's political problems involving Ukraine has been solved.
The rest of the world will have to pay the price for the aftermath.
Why make comments complaining about some unspecified injustice? If you have a problem with something I said, then be specific. Otherwise, your comment looks like drama for its own sake and is a thinly veiled attack on my own integrity.
I quote you directly and respond directly to those words. If you don’t like it, maybe say different words, clarify your remarks, or specify where you think you were misunderstood or misrepresented. If you can’t do any of that, just discuss the topic instead of derailing with unsupported complaining. Pretty simple.
Russia has had men and materiel in the Donbas since 2014. Giving Ukraine some missiles to defend itself from further invasion 5 years after the start of fighting (actually I think the first deliveries happened in 2017 or 18) hardly makes the US responsible for “escalating” anything. What’s more, the parties have negotiated several truces and cease-fires since that time, so the mere addition of Javelin missiles did not irretrievably exacerbate the war and is not very relevant to the current situation.
You mean besides the fact that he has had troops there for eight years already? You can just ignore that?
Here’s what blows my mind: You can acknowledge stuff like this:
But it’s somehow the fault of the West that diplomacy hasn’t solved the problem? Russia approaches with guns drawn, but the US and NATO are the bad guys because they didn’t try harder to talk about it??? Sorry, but that’s kind of ridiculous - at least to me.
Putin, and only Putin, is responsible for the state of affairs in Ukraine. Is he mad? Is he paranoid that everything that happens in the world that he doesn’t like is the result of some Western conspiracy? Is he perpetrating this war to prop up nationalism and his own popularity? I think it’s some combination of all these things and the US and NATO are not responsible for any of it.