China's 'unusual' nuclear pact with Ukraine's Yanukovich | Al Jazeera America
By: AJAM
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Analysis: The deal reveals more about China's tense relations in the Pacific than any allegiance to Ukraine or Russia
March 7, 20147:30AM ET by Massoud Hayoun@mhayounGoogle+ Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, left, and Chinese President Xi Jinping at a signing ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in December 2013 in Beijing.Wang Zhao/AFP/Getty Images
After Russia sent troops into Ukraine's Crimea region in defiance of the West, Moscow reached out to China for international support. But while Russia says China is in agreement over Ukraine, Beijing has remained largely silent publicly and, analysts say, will likely remain so.
That silence may be due to a recent deal that ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich signed with Chinese President Xi Jinping — to bring Ukraine under China's nuclear umbrella.
On Dec. 5, two months before Yanukovich was dismissed by his nation's parliament, Xi and Yanukovich signed the accord, which one participating Chinese official indicated to state media amounted to $10 billion and included an "unusual" nuclear clause. In the event of a nuclear attack or so much as the threat of one, China would offer Kiev military support.
Yet the pact seems to reveal more about Beijing's various territorial disputes in Asia than it does about China's ties with Russia.
China has in fact penned a slew of multi-billion-dollar agreements with leaders who have since been unseated or debilitated by popular revolt in countries like Libya, Syria and now Ukraine, costing China both financially and in terms of influence.
Amid Russia's incursions into Crimea, it's unclear whether China will strengthen ties with Russia. But after a series of unfortunate contracts with toppled Arab Spring leaders and now Yanukovich, some China watchers have expressed hopes that China will stop aligning itself with nations threatened by political instability.
"China is trying to position itself in the world today as a major economic and political player. I believe that China will play a very sensitive and long-term card in dealing with those countries that had political and social crises like Libya and Syria," said Dong Qingwen, communications professor and Chinese media analyst at the University of the Pacific.
It's a tall order for a nation that has attempted to brand itself since its 1949 inception as aligning with developing nations, some of which have since developed entrenched dictatorial administrations.
An 'unusual' nuclear umbrella
And so it is, analysts say, that Xi's deal with Ukraine deal was really aimed at asserting power over China's adversaries in ongoing territorial disputes with Japan and South Korea.
"That's unusual for China. China never goes that far to interfere with political issues in Europe," Austria-based Chinese political analyst and international relations professor Yu Ligong told Al Jazeera.
China has long sought to cast off its no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons, and some have said this shift has invited ongoing tensions with less-equipped military powers in the region. China has the second-largest defense budget in the world behind the U.S., and Beijing announced Wednesday its defense spending increased by 12.2 percent to $132 billion, though that is still just one-fifth of the U.S.'s defense budget.
Yu said the "nuclear umbrella" pact with Kiev was designed to send a message to Japan, amid ongoing disputes over the Diaoyu-Senkaku Islands, and Southeast Asian rivals in disputes in the South China Sea.
"Through this agreement with Ukraine, China wanted to paint a new face: 'We won't apply nuclear weapons, but we are a nuclear power. You should not forget.' It's a way to show muscle," Yu said.
The message appeared to have fallen on deaf ears. Chinese media published countless articles on the agreement, but the deal got little play in the international media, Lu noted. And little over a month later, at Davos, it appeared Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe hoped to move international support against what Tokyo says is Chinese aggression in the Pacific.
Quiet diplomacy
For now it appears China's involvement with Kiev stops at its "unusual" cooperative agreement with Ukraine's old regime.
Though Moscow still seems to think otherwise. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, after a call with Chinese counterpart Wang Yi that the two were largely "in agreement" over Moscow's inroads in post-Yanukovich Ukraine, according to a report from Sky News. But China has offered no direct sign of support for Russia.
"China is walking a fine line," said Jie Dalei, Peking University international relations professor.
"China does not want to jeopardize its quite robust strategic partnership with Russia by taking the U.S. and European (Union's) position," Jie said,
And some say it would behoove China, in its perennial war of words with neighboring countries for islands and water rights, to side with Russia against the U.S. and the West.
"China has become increasingly weary of a pivot to the Pacific of U.S. military assertiveness," said Georgetown economics professor and China expert Arthur Dong.
"China views the United States as the only thing in the way of its pursuit of destiny, that is, recovery of islands and domains that it held as late as the 19th century," Dong said. "China's relationship with Russia is not based on love but one based on convenience."
So far, China appears in state media to have subscribed to Moscow's premise that Russia is acting to protect Ukraine's Russians from perceived dangers. But Jie maintains that's as far as China may go.
"China does not want to vocally support Russia's actions," Jie said. "China has its own separatist problems, as seen in the very recent terrorist attack at Kunming's train station, so China would not be too happy if Crimea can walk away from Ukraine with impunity."
China's mission to the United Nations did not respond to an interview request from Al Jazeera, and Russia's mission declined to comment.
Picking the right team
China doesn't show signs of ending its alignment with countries that find themselves in unstable political situations, and recent history has shown it could lose a great deal by investing — both politically and financially — in those countries.
Bilateral trade between the Syria and China rose to almost $2.5 billion in 2010 before Syria's civil war was triggered by Arab Spring unrest in 2011. Before the toppling of Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi, China had 50 large-scale projects in Libya.
The December deal with Ukraine may have amounted to less than $10 billion, but was designed to offer China preferential trade status in the post-Soviet nation. It's a deal that may have to be renegotiated in Ukraine's pending election in May.
Russia is still an economic power — a major regional energy supplier at a time when China is scouring the globe for stable oil supplies to drive its economy. But humanrights concerns in Russia have rallied various groups to protest and even attack the administration of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
With this in mind, some analysts say China might not solidify an alignment with Russia in Ukraine, even after it worked together with Moscow on multiple occasions to block U.N. Security Council resolutions on the conflict in Syria.
"China doesn't want to damage its relations with and image in the U.S. and European countries by siding with Russia," Jie said.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
339 visitors
Trolling, taunting, and off-topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve the continuity of this seed.
Some very interesting information in this article. China is walking a fine line and it seems that they have lost a great deal of money/business by investing in countries that are autocratic.
The Chinese Ukraine nuclear deal is striking to say the least.
This agreement is still in effect which raises a lot of questions and some really messy situations.
The articles on this are on WSJ and Washington Times and are behind a pay wall.
Oh, I just noticed it - Washington Times? One of America's most extremely far right news sources. Gee, the guy who usually posts from that source hasn't been around for a while.
Although that article is EIGHT YEARS OLD, it does contain some interesting insights, especially concerning reasons why China will not openly support the present invasion, although, and this is of major importance, Ukraine is a major supplier of wheat to China, and a major link for China's Belt & Road Initiative to Europe. Even more interesting IMO is that China's not taking sides, its UN abstaining, its encouraging negotiations instead of bullets and bombs even offering to mediate, is because China will not be a loser in this war no matter whether Russia or Ukraine wins it. Where it could be a loser is if Putin oversteps and kindles WW3, or the West does, but then the whole world is a loser, if anything is even left to lose.
It is eight years old but the real point is that the nuclear agreement is still in effect.
The nuclear agreement between China and Ukraine is still in effect. That really does set up some interesting positions that China has to navigate.
What if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine or even threatens to use them, China according to the agreement will have to support Ukraine militarily.
Per a report, Russia is asking China for economic and military aid.
If so, it will be interesting to see what China does - will it comply with the request and not only shed its neutral position but also contravene the Western-imposed sanctions? It could argue that America is providing military aid to Ukraine so why not match it to Russia in order to maintain "balance"? What a conundrum.
That is one conundrum and the nuclear agreement is a real elephant in the room.
If Russia is aware that China is obligated to defend Ukraine in the event of nuclear weapons being used against it, that should prevent Putin (as long as he really ISN'T totally insane) from using nuclear weapons there. However, if China refuses to provide Russia with the aid it is requesting, Putin may say to Hell with China and who knows what he will do?
There were tears in my eyes when this morning I read about the expectant mother who was killed along with her baby that the medics tried but failed to save. All of this, all the destruction, all the deaths, all the injuries, all the displacement would not have taken place if both Zelenskyy and Putin had not tried to prove whose balls were bigger. So what if NATO is not in Ukraine, had Putin invaded would the result for Russia not be what it is now? - Isolation, debilitating sanctions, a death blow to the Russian citizenry, even a possible revolution there?
But everybody's got to be a fucking hero.
Ukraine is an independent country, the future is their's and not Russians to make. Also, Russia guaranteed the borders of Ukraine when Ukraine gave up it nukes, giving up their nukes was a mistake, who in the hell would trust anything that Putin says.
The agreement states that even a threat of using nukes would require China to support Ukraine militarily.
Yep, Kavika, so that's America's solution, "The American Way". Who gives a shit how many people die, are maimed, displaced, and how much infrastructure demolished, as long as Ukraine can get NATO's protection when there was no threat anyway until Ukraine applied for NATO membership. Hooray for the heroes.
Just curious, how do you feel about the millions of children starving, many to death, these days in Afghanistan? There are a few theories about why that's happening.
Sorry, but as I've told you before, the NATO issue is a red herring. For Putin, the real issue is Russian supremacy and his ideological claim that Ukraine is not a country and rightfully belongs to Russia. Read his speeches. Even if NATO did not exist, Putin would make it his business to attempt to bring Ukraine back under Russian control.
Are you aware that early on Putin had no problem with NATO? After he consolidated his power, he then needed an external enemy, as all autocrats do.
Okay, let it be, let it work its way out. You know, of course, Putin will not stop or he may as well commit suicide, because he will have lost so much face he will be a dead man anyway. As well, Zelenskyy has established that he will not give up until he's the last man standing. People are dying, people are being maimed, millions displaced, buildings and infrastructure are being destroyed, but it's a matter of principle, give me liberty or give me death, and the end will be nothing more than...
But so be it, because Putin....
I admit not knowing much about the situation but I have to agree with you Gsquared. I don't think NATO makes any difference. Putin is invading Ukraine and killing people for no reason whatsoever. He needs to be gone. Taken out.
Obviously the US and NATO and some neutral countries, it's Russian that doesn't care about the killing of civilians with an overt attack on an independent country and now it's civilians.
The NATO red herring is just that, Buzz. I feel very sad about the Afghans also the Syrians, Kosovo, and multi countries in the world.
Well, Buzz, if you want to throw shit about the US it's best you look in your country of residence before attacking another country. The human rights record and their debt expansion of countries in the Belt and Road program is meant to do nothing but to lock these countries into an unstainable debt to China which allows China to control them. Check out Shi Lanka for a start.
America isn't perfect and as an American Indian I'm fully aware of that yet we do try to correct our mistakes and move forward, slowly at times but moving forward. We have done more good in the world than China ever has or will.
I believe she had the baby but they both died.
Yeah, Buzz, lots of folks thought appeasing Hitler would calm him down, too. We see how that worked out. Why would we try it again? How well do you think Putin will treat Ukrainians who fought to not have a homicidal maniac take over their country? Will he send them flowers for knuckling under, do you think? Maybe invite them for tea (polonium for free)?
I cannot imagine why anyone would think acquiescence is a good idea here.
I'm sorry to see that photo, Buzz. But it was trying to appease a dictator, (Hilter) that lead to that photo and the deaths of millions of innocent people.
He loves his people, and they love him. He is the kind of man that would throw himself across any Ukranian to save their life. It is his love of country and its people that is keeping them strong and fighting back against a man who only wants their valuable and vast resources. That is what Putin hates. That is why Putin has tried to have him assassinated 3 (known) times. Putin wants to do to Ukraine what he has done to Russia: Kill or imprison those who try to expose him as a murderous dictator, and throw its citizens into extreme poverty and immense suffering... all for the sake of having more money than all those citizens combined could spend in a lifetime.
By the way, the fact that the Ukrainian people love and support President Zelensky without him having to suppress/coerce/force/murder them into respecting him is what Putin hates the most.
Buzz, no one is forcing the Ukrainians to stay and fight. They can leave or throw down their arms, but the opposite is taking place, more and more Ukrainians are taking up arms and more and more are returning to Ukraine to fight
Everyone is taking part in the resistance to the Russians, from young men to grandfathers/grandmothers, women. Why in the world do you think that the Russian army is stuggling and resorting to attacking civilians?
Yes, because Putin. Russia invaded Ukraine!
It's too late. My feeling is that it could have been stopped before it started. Now it's too late to stop it without either escalating it or else it will simply run its course. It's too late. It's too late to try to stop the virus. It's too late to try to stop the gun proliferation and gun murders. It's too late to stop global warming. It's just too damned late as usual. All I've been saying is that the deaths and destruction and displacement could have been stopped but obviously allowing it to even START was the mistake. I don't back Putin on this, he is a madman. Just because Chamberlain was a fool, did not consider that the German people supported Hitler does NOT mean that the Russian people support Putin. Can you not see how the Russian people have been reacting to this? I will repeat what I said before:
Call me a demon if you want, it's obviously become a sport on this site, just because I actually consider OTHER possibilities.
Males between the ages of 18-60 are not being able to evacuate. They have been ordered to remain behind to fight.
I agree that China made one terrible mistake that led to the greatest detriment to humanity - it invented gunpowder.
Has China brought Sri Lanka to its knees? Has it forced Sri Lanka to do its bidding? Does it "control" Sri Lanka? All I've seen is gratitude on the part of Sri Lanka for the benefits that China has brought it. So China spreads its influence by improving the infrastructure of other nations, providing benefits to other nations, good employment for their people, improving the lives of their people. Obviously I'm not permitted to see anything that differs from that so please provide me with the evidence of how China has enslaved the nations on the BRI, or any others with the aid they have provided to them, but don't bother if it's from a "demonize and contain China" source.
Now, let's look at the method the Europeans and Americans have used to impose their influence. You just happen to be lucky to even exist after how your people were treated when the white man came and you know very well you would be a hypocrite to deny it. Was not their way "conquer loyalty by force"? When I came to China I didn't only teach English, but also Australian Commercial Law - both Canadian Law and Australian Law are based in British Common Law so it was easy for me. Real Estate Law was part of the course, and I was shocked to discover that the Australian aborigines were not given the same benefits as the colonials, even now, in the early 2000s.
From my viewpoint, China's BRI says 'join and share the benefits', whereas the Western concept had always been 'conquer and rule'.
Here is how Ski Lanka lost its port facility to China because of the overwhelming debt owed to China.
That is just for starters, Buzz.
That's a key point!
Nobody called you a demon, Buzz. We're just all perplexed at your suggestion that giving a madman power over another country just because he demands it is a good idea. Lunatics might demand to run the asylum, but we don't hand them the keys.
Many Russians don't back Putin, but many also do. They've been fed propaganda. Some don't believe Russia has committed the atrocities they have, because Russian government is keeping that from its own people. I watched a video earlier this week of a Ukrainian man whose own Russian father thinks he's lying about being in danger from Russian attack.
China did not force Sri Lanka to have China build the port. That was Sri Lanka's choice to make. So, Kavika, if you required a mortgage to buy your home in Ocala, which was your choice to do, and then could not make the payments, would you blame the mortgage company for requiring foreclosure?
I'm aware that quite a few other countries are considered to be vulnerable to Chinese "debt trap" possibility, but those who declare that Ukraine is entitled to its independence and freedom of choice are hypocritical of being critical of any other nations that are entitled to make their own free choices as to their perceived wishes and needs, or are hypocritical to declare that China does not have the right to PEACEFULLY seek benefits in and from other nations (NOT WITH FORCE) while it's okay that America has sought and obtained support of its values and benefits from other nations and so many American corporations have sought and obtained benefits by expanding their enterprises in and throughout China.
Maybe so but it's also just an opinion.
Yes Samoa woke up what was happening and stopped it when the new government took over....$128 million how in the hell can they afford to pay that back...no matter how low the interest or any other enticement..
I guess that you totally missed the point, Buzz. It's a well-planned debt trap for Ski Lanka and other countries. You're right they entered into the contract because they needed the infrastructure and like poor people and payday loans they got screwed. There are plenty of countries that have pulled out of the deals completely or cut them way back.
China can do what China wants, no one is stopping them from peacefully doing what they are doing, but it's always best to remember, ''caveat emptor''
It's also good to note that China has benefited greatly from American investment and the building of facilities in China.
BTW, China is used to using force as well. The man-made island in the South China Sea, the threat of taking Taiwan by force if necessary, they are no benign neighbor, Buzz. Or their invasion of Vietnam that killed thousands of Vietnamese.
Don't throw stones if you're living in a glasshouse.
Read a couple of them, with the knowledge that an American source would hardly post something good about China, but npr is relatively unbiased, and it did say this in its article about Montenegro..
As well, the African Report did not criticize China so much as it did those African leaders who made the deals and it did finish its report with this statement...
But surely America can find ways to stop China from peacefully increasing its influence and power, in order to strengthen its attempts to contain China since its demonizing and interfering in China's domestic affairs is not that effective.
with china's aggressive territorial activities along the asian side of the pacific rim, it wouldn't take much to recreate an asian version of nato. NK is about the only friend they have left between india and japan.
I well aware of what is in the links, Buzz. I actually read them before I post them. As I stated before it's like the poor people that have payday loans, China is nothign more than a Payday loan company.
I pointed out that China isn't peacefully increasing its influence and power, did you miss that?
Perhaps Russia will threaten Ukraine with nuclear weapons and China will side with Ukraine and the fur will fly and they will destroy one another. Two birds with one stone.
China invaded Vietnam to support Cambodia which had just been invaded by Vietnam. America then entered Vietnam to support Vietnam. I don't think that's an applicable reference, and it's been a long time and many changes of government since. I am not saying this to agree with it, but China's occupation of the South China sea, it's claims on certain islands in opposition to Japan and its claims upon Taiwan are based on history, ancient history and occupations and ancient maps. I don't think China has its eyes on invading and conquering any other places by force. And in case you bring it up, its problem with India is a limited border dispute, that both nations are trying to solve through diplomacy.
As for "caveat emptor", that is exactly correct. And if the vendor has breached no law, it deserves no penalty, nor does it deserve hypocritical criticism.
Putin having power over Ukraine is not what I suggested. It was a matter of negotiation between two countries to come to a solution, but negotiations are meaningless if neither side is willing to negotiate a compromise - that is what I lamented, that everyone had to show how big their balls were, and now look at the result of that.
As for my suggestion about the effect on the Russian populace, I believe it's having more of an effect than you think.
I believe that thousands are being detained because of their opposition to this war, and that could be a drop in the bucket. And I will repeat again, that if Putin after an agreed to compromise would invade Ukraine, then he would reap the same damage to his nation that is already happening now, and IMO would not only increase, but Putin himself might well be assassinated or deposed. Ukraine was the land of my mother's birth and I may even have family there I'm not aware of. How can anyone interpret what I've been saying as support for Putin or this war?
The Sino Vietnamese war was in 1979 long after the US left SE Asia.
BTW, if China is so benevolent why not let Tibet return to being a free country instead of crushing any dissent?
Well, you know how it is, dev, a friend in need is a friend indeed.
I never said China was benevolent. Is there a nation in the world that is? Most countries are concerned about the welfare of those who live in them. That is the reason China eradicated abject poverty, so there would be no homeless people - especially if they are an endangered species as it appears happens elsewhere.
I don't think either one of us has ever been to Tibet, so I can't speak for the situation that is there at present. I'm sure I get a totally different description than you do and neither one of us can entirely rely on what we read or hear, can we.
Red herring or not, who can possibly be happy with the enormity of the death, destruction and displacement happening now? Sometimes I really have to wonder about "Give me liberty or give me death". As for herring, you have no idea how much I miss herring in wine sauce or herring in cream sauce that I used to enjoy with bagels back in Canada, but have never been able to find here even in big box import stores.
What? Ordered? I thought Ukraine was a free country.
He just might accomplish that, unfortunately for everyone else.
Maybe he's giving a lot of people reason to carry out on him what he's done to others.
NK is about the only friend they have left
As the saying goes...with friends like that, who needs enemies.
That is how it has been reported by more than one news source. Take it up with them if you don't like the wording. Don't shoot the messenger.
Yeah, you did. Not in as many words, of course. You suggest that Putin, who neither resides nor holds office in Ukraine, should have a say in whether Ukraine joins NATO. Ukraine is either an independent country, or it isn't. It can't be both independent and subject to Putin's paranoia-based whims. There is no reason Ukraine should have to compromise with an aggressor, and Russia under Putin is an aggressor. Ukraine did well to hold off telling Putin to fuck off for as long as they did, because that's pretty much the only response he deserved.
We should not reward bullies for being bullies by insisting that their victims compromise with them. Nobody should be expected to give the bully half his lunch money, just to keep the bully happy. The bully only deserves a punch in the nose.
I would never have shot at you, Paula. All I did was question the use of the word - and since you quoted it from a source it wasn't your word anyway.
Maybe we'll talk about it again if what is happening leads to WW3. Then we'll talk about whether or not it was all worth it, if there is any life left on Earth to do so. (Just in case thousands of people slaughtered, millions displaced, a whole nation in ruins is insufficient.)
Anoon..yes I pointed this out y'day in another article.. China is playing both sides..
Supports Russia's invasion and then "We don't forget our Ukrainian friends" by sending humanitarian aid...
Will not go down well with Putin...
The agreement between the two on nuclear attacks or threats on Ukraine will require the Chinese to support Ukraine militarily is stunning and puts China in a position that if Russia uses nukes on Ukraine or threatens the use China has to support Ukraine.
How has China supported Russia's invasion? It sent humanitarian aide to Ukraine - what has it sent to Russia? Is 'abstaining' tantamount to 'supporting' now - the dictionary doesn't say that. China reports the news, the same news that America reports about the war, but when China reports it that means it supports Russia, and when America reports the exact same news, that means it supports Ukraine.
sure the “no limits” friendship between Putin and China is neutrality.
It sent $790,000 in aid to Ukraine. That’s like tipping someone a dollar at a restaurant. It’s more insulting than nothing.
And of course, China is pushing Russian propaganda.
Evening..just sitting down the harbour watching the ships load...our guys are working the wharves the crews on the ships operating the cranes. Loading logs and wood chips heading for Japan.
Everyone is working together regardless of nationality to complete the task..load the ship and get it on its way.
Humans can be so very compatible at times and yet other times so bloody stupid..to the detriment to us all...
I'll say.
I don't respond to assholes.
Seems that China is upset with Taiwan because they have supported Ukraine with funds.
Seems that China is upset with Taiwan because they have supported Ukraine with funds. $15 million from Taiwan vs $786,000 from China.
Good morning Kavika.
I guess China had to do something, so it did a minimal amount just to show its face, whereas Taiwan was making a few different points with their contribution. I can just see them grinning over it in Taiwan's cabinet room.
Actually, since China considers Taiwan part of its nation, it can now say China has contributed $15,786,000 to the cause.
So if China believes that Taiwan is part of China now then they should reimburse Taiwan for their donation to Ukraine, or they can sit on the sidelines doing little to nothing.
Let's understand this one point, this war isn't about NATO and it never has been, it's about a democratic country with a large Russian-speaking minority right on the Russian border. This underminds Russian autocratic rule and Putin is scared shitless of that happening. I don't know if you see the videos of the Russian bombing and shelling the civilian population and laying the cities to waste, this is exactly what he did in Syria and Chechnya, thousands of civilians including children and old people are dying daily.
China is trying to play both sides and the weight of the moral world is pointing that out. They can throw up all the smoke screens in the world but the reality is staring them in the face.
It's quite simple for me, an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation is an act of war by a Russian leader that is trying to become another Stalin. Look what the Russian did to the Ukrainians under Stalin, they starved to death millions, the same to Chechnya he killed millions there as well. Do you not see the similarity?
If China chooses to back Russia, or straddle the line they will be looked at as a supporter of a mass murderer. It's that simple, Buzz.
And yes, I have two nephews in the US army right on the edge of the battle with 173rd Airborne in Latvia and another with the 10th Mountain Divison in Poland and a third to be there soon, so it's personal to me and I believe to most freedom-loving people.
This is my last comment on this.
I don't agree with the "If you're not with us, you're against us" philosophy. I don't believe in the enslavement of others by FORCING them to take the accuser's side or they are the enemy. China is not the only nation in the world that has stayed out of it, but China... but China... but China....
Did Xi Jinping tell you that China is trying to play both sides? Are you a member of the CPC governing body? Or are you Swami with a crystal ball in front of you? Never mind that India abstained and did not want to involve itself by taking sides, never mind that Pakistan abstained and did not want to involve itself by taking sides, or Iran, or Cuba, or South Africa or all those other African nations, BUT CHINA, BUT CHINA, BUT CHINA....
India, Pakistan, Cuba, etc. are not helping to spread Russian propaganda vilifying Ukraine.
China is.
Apparently, it's working.
I read China Daily every day (and surely don't have to repeat again that I read CTV (Canada Television News) website and USA Today every day, and npr, etc in order to see both sides of the stories (something others refuse to do but criticize ME for doing) and the news I've seen reported is no different than reported in Canada or America or anywhere else in the world. If China is doing that to spread Russian propaganda then so is America and Canada and Israel and the UK and Australia....
In fact I might say that Fox News, Tucker Carlson, and a lot of GQP persons are spreading Russian propaganda a hell of a lot more than China is falsely accused of doing. China NEEDS its relationships with Russia (since it was PUSHED there by America which is something you cannot honestly deny) AND Ukraine for the reasons I have explained again and again.
BUT CHINA... BUT CHINA... BUT CHINA...
None of the above, just an observer of what is happening in Ukraine and the stance or lack of stance of some countries and having the world news available to me. That seems to be something that is really lacking on your part.
I'm well aware of this but none of them are trying to claim their position as a world leader which China is. China is an ally of Russia and has said that all country's borders should be honored yet hasn't said a damn thing about Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine.
Have you not seen the devastation that Russia is inflicting on Ukraine? Or doesn't China media show the slaughter of civilians that is taking palce?
Most of the world sees exactly what is happening between Ukraine and Russia and is not happy about it at all and in fact, it has changed the geopolitical picture in the world and especially in Europe. NATO is fast becoming fortress Europe with all nations investing in arming themselves to the Russian threat.
China has two very large trade lanes, the US and the EU, their actions on the Ukraine war will, IMO, have a huge effect on China's trade future with either or both of these lanes.
Your home country originally was sending non-military aid but starting two weeks ago they are sending lethal weapons to Ukraine and is Australia.
So, IMO, this is another step in Putin's plan to rebuild the old Russian empire. If he wins in Ukraine then Georgia and Moldova will be next, then he wants all the old Warsaw pact countries back under Russian rule.
You can have the last word then I'm closing the article.
You know, I glanced through China Daily, and noticed a lot of "passive voice" in regards to Ukraine. It's "Ukraine crisis" instead of "war on Ukraine", and so forth.
I read quite a bit about a smear campaign by the US, targeting China, alleged by unnamed "observers".
Then there's this:
So you'll forgive me for not trusting China Daily as an honest or unbiased source, and for disagreeing that it's reporting the same news as other sources.
Also, the Chinese government controls China Daily. Not so with Fox News.
China wasn't always such an ally of Russia but has always shared a border with Russia, and if China strengthened its ties with Russia more recently then IMO it's because everything America has been doing to demonize and contain China PUSHED China to go in that direction. As well, IMO, because both Russia and Ukraine are important to China for reasons I've said over and over again here, China will NOT be shamed or forced by the USA to take sides by making other than neutral comments. Good old America - either obey what it wants or you're the enemy, eh?
And yes, I see what is happening in Ukraine, not only because I watch western news sources, but if you just happen to turn on CGTN (China Global Television Network - English language) you will see that the Chinese media, even government controlled, show what's actually happening as well, and I know that for sure because my wife watches the news in Chinese and I'm not blind but can see what they broadcast to the Chinese people.
Are you saying the China Daily article you posted is a lie? If so, why have you not posted reliable proof that it is? I don't see anything wrong with that story other than it could contradict the accusations the USA makes about China, i.e. what it prefers for the world to believe - BLAME CHINA BLAME CHINA BLAME CHINA..
Locking article for tonight, will reopen tomorrow.
Article open again
I did not know this. Thank you for the article.
I just watched on the CGTN news broadcast that there is a possible solution being considered of Ukraine becoming a neutral country, no NATO, with iron-clad guarantees of remaining an independent neutral nation. IF that is true, and IF that in fact happens, then I feel that my opinion about the whole affair was absolutely the solution that could have been reached in the first place - with NO invasion, NO deaths, NO destruction, NO displacements. But oh no, that could not possibly be. Big balls are more important. There is no guarantee that is going to happen, but let's just see what does. Surely nobody on NT would prefer to see an escalation to WW3 instead.