China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war
axios.com
axios.com
Think of it what you will but it would be wrong to discard it as mere propaganda. These are deeply held beliefs.
To see their power look at the French poll of who won them the World War. It became 20% in the recent decades from 57% for Russia
https://www.france24.com/en/20190601-who-won-wwii-russias-ro...
If you want to categorize what the USSR did in that period as conquest and genocide would you say the same about the US annexing Hawai'i? I don't know where you're getting "forgiven and forgotten" from given that you can't talk about the USSR without someone bringing up historical events they don't understand. The Holodomor, Katyn massacre, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact are all common offenders here.
And it was the collapse of the USSR + subsequent privatization of state enterprises at bargain bin prices that created the oligarchs that today are Putin's power base. The US & UK also intervened to put Putin into power in 1999, continuing a long-standing tradition of destabilizing regions and not really caring until the consequences spill over into a country like Ukraine that "looks like us" and live in "a civilized country with McDonalds"
That does not imply eastern European states joined the Soviet union willingly.
> If you want to categorize what the USSR did in that period as conquest and genocide would you say the same about the US annexing Hawai'i?
Unless Hawai'i joined willingly, it is by definition conquest, yes. I'm not aware of any subsequent nationality or ethnicity based mass killings, but if they took place, that is, again, genocide by definition.
> you can't talk about the USSR without someone bringing up historical events they don't understand.
You are correct, I don't fully understand that part of history. Could you explain how using military force to expand the Soviet empire wasn't conquest, or how the Holodomor wasn't genocide?
> The US & UK also intervened to put Putin into power in 1999, continuing a long-standing tradition of destabilizing regions and not really caring until the consequences spill over into a country like Ukraine that "looks like us" and live in "a civilized country with McDonalds"
You disprove your point in the same sentence that you make it. Russians look very similar to Ukrainians, and they've had McDonald's since 1990, while Ukraine got its first in 1997, and has less than half as many McDonald's per capita as Russia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_McDonal...
Because quite a lot of people in China think US is organizing an Eastern NATO, to "destabilize" the whole region. For example, the nuclear-powered marine deal with Australia, etc. Biden’s first year was much harsher on China than Russia.
In 1999, NATO bombed the Chinese embassy, killing 3, that certainly did not help.
It probably doesn't help that this was a stated goal of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
No it wasn't, and TPP had no security provisions at all.
Just look how many Asia countries joined the US-lead economic sanction/coercion. Very few.
We had one of those, it was called SEATO. There's been only negative progress since on that front.
> For example, the nuclear-powered marine deal with Australia
AUKUS involved countries already in NATO-like agreements with the US (UK is in NATO, Australia in ANZUS) so it doesn't really change much in terms of security alignment.
It does, because it pissed off France ( which also has territory in the Pacific) for no good reason, and also stated that the choice of nuclear subs is due to the Chinese threat. And also it pushed the delivery date of new Australian submarines by at least a decade, probably more.
Anti-US is a part of it, but from what I know, Chinese people do generally like Russia a lot more than most of the world. I think it’s kind of a culture and history thing, education is likely a big part. Chinese tend to favour Russia by default for many things, even if the US isn’t involved. The US involvement (perceived or not) definitely still contributes a lot to the general sentiment in this particular case, of course.
SEATO used to exist, and had the exact opposite effect. The destabilizing influence is an expansionist PRC.
I mean, the confidence and elan with which a narrative is pushed by blatantly hiding contrarian views and even facts is fascinating to observe, especially when you're on the ground looking at stuff firsthand.
You really need to experience it to believe it.
That being said, bias does not automatically imply propaganda. Naturally someone raised in the UK/US is going to have a Western interpretation of actions and bias, but in most cases these are beliefs genuinely held. I'm sure as a British person I could find many areas where I disagree with you, and our particular views are coloured by cultural biases - but that does not make them propaganda IMO. Tech articles often contain ridiculous statements around encryption and the dark web, but it's most likely lack of understanding than propaganda.
I would say propaganda requires intent - usually to achieve a political aim at the behest of the government. Genuine propaganda is hard to conclusively find within the BBC - though I personally suspect some of the covid reporting contained a type of voluntary propaganda.
This is most certainly present, and is glaringly obvious when you're seeing events unfold firsthand and look at the reportage in western media very deliberately leave out happenings that don't tie in with the narrative being peddled. It definitely isn't just bias. It's wilful propaganda, with malicious intent.
For example, a writer for the Express won't write an article about how the British Empire screwed India because it will annoy the readership. It's not propaganda, it's people who don't know what they're talking about desperately fighting over shrinking advertising revenue.
And they will use government sources, adding little more than stenography to whatever message their government wants to push.
Let's put in this way.
One saw a black box.
One was told that the black box contains some nasty staff.
One knows that the above statement is biased.
One then claim that the black box contains the nasty thing.
See how bias anchored one's thought, even if clearly this guy had no first hand information to make any judgement at all. Yet still be able to have a mental state that clearly established.
In a way I'm glad this has all happened to show the few who remain faithful in media that it's all bullshit pushing some narrative.
This is all so blatant now that it's almost impossible to defend rationally.
For example, the Guardian's headline:
> World ‘narrowly averted a nuclear catastrophe’, says US envoy to UN after Russia attack on Ukraine atomic plant - as it happened
Whereas Russia Today's headline and first line are:
> Ukraine accuses Russia of ‘shelling’ nuclear plant
> A fire broke out on Friday morning in a training building adjacent to the six-reactor Zaporozhskaya Nuclear Power Plant (NPP), which local Ukrainian authorities have blamed on shelling by Russian troops.
The Telegraph has this quote a way down the page[2]:
> "For the moment, we know that all these dangers (that there had been concern about) haven't materialised but that the fire was contained to an administration building."
I was genuinely shocked and worried when I read the Telegraph, until I saw the bit about the building, and then I see that RT is making that the important part of their reporting.
I'm not picking a side here, nor trying to dismiss genuine worries (I still think the fire was too close for comfort), however, I think it's interesting to see the ways the same events are reported on, and it's something I think should be allowed, at the very least to counter accusations of censorship in aid of propaganda.
[1] that phrase implies intention, I can't confirm that, of course.
[2] I know it's a "live blog" page but that wouldn't stop them putting the info in the summary at the top, nor dialling down the scary language.
[tele]: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/03/04/russia-ukr...
[RT]: https://www.rt.com/russia/551189-ukraine-zaporozhskaya-nucle...
[graun]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/mar/04/ukraine-n...
A year ago Zelensky closed all opposition TV channels on the pretext they were pro-Russian. [0] Not one or two. All of them. Since then there is no opposition TV in Ukraine.
An extremely democratic move, isn't it?
[0] https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-zelenskiy-bans-three-oppositio...
And there was not even a court decision. He just unplugged them overnight without notice. How democratic.
It's not the same as forbidding certain words and jailing journalists for 15 years for not agreeing with the state.
So what exactly did they say?
They peddle Russia’s claim that US has bioweapons in Ukraine: https://www.newsweek.com/china-peddles-russias-claim-that-us...
And here’s CGTN’s article on “biolabs” in Ukraine, citing Russia media outlets and officials: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202203/1254330.shtml
Edit: As pointed out by a commenter, the above article is from GlobalTimes, not CGTN. The actual CGTN article: https://news.cgtn.com/news/2022-03-07/Russia-reveals-evidenc...
Following Go rules, since I no longer have the energy to dig up references for you, let’s just call ko.
[1] https://theintercept.com/2021/09/23/coronavirus-research-gra...
Other scientists contacted by The Intercept noted that there is published evidence that the Wuhan Institute of Virology was already engaged in some of the genetic engineering work described in the proposal and that viruses designed in North Carolina could easily be used in China. “The mail is filled with little envelopes with plasmid dried on to filter paper that scientists routinely send each other,” said Jack Nunberg, director of the Montana Biotechnology Center at the University of Montana.
Sure, but that doesn't point to America it points to China.
> “The mail is filled with little envelopes with plasmid dried on to filter paper that scientists routinely send each other,”
It seems unlikely the leak happened at the Wuhan post office, but even if it did, how does imply American incompetence?
1 million dead people kind of makes it seem an “a priori”
Some analyst will someday pull together a fault tree weighted by deaths and economic harm, and America’s share will (based on current trends) certainly weigh heavier than most.
Some analyst will someday pull together a fault tree weighted by deaths and economic harm, and America’s share will (based on current trends) certainly weigh heavier than most.
Edit: "The US has an interest in biolabs in Ukraine" - I feel like this is a pretty useless nit to pick.
(Sorry for the twitter source. It's a video of Marco Rubio, a US senator, talking to Victoria Nuland)
The US is basically warning that Russia plans to release stuff from these labs and blame the Ukrainians for it. Kindof the same thing they were supposedly doing with Chernobyl. If that's Russian propaganda, then the propaganda has gotten to pretty senior levels of the state department.
edit: look I'm definitely not some Chinese misinfo spreader. I think that weaponization of social media, weaponization of the news, and weaponization of human emotion is basically the next version of nuclear weapons. That is: a new type of weapon that will (and is) completely change(ing) the war landscape. I think that sort of weapon is in use now, and the use will only increase. You've already seen Russia ban facebook for their citizens, China has their great firewall, and strict control over their citizens social media. It's here.
But I think the people who are trying to reach for these claims about bioweapons labs, or "bio labs" or perhaps no labs at all, are the ones spreading misinformation. That ambiguity and division that you are creating by spreading these lies is the problem. This desire to attack people's ability to interpret simple statements, and read the plain meaning of those simple statements is an attack on people's ability to resist this propaganda.
Does the US have "bio labs" in Ukraine? Yes. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30615313
Is the US concerned that the materials in these labs could fall into the hands of the Russians? Also yes.
These are facts. Acknowledging these facts does not make you a Q anon conspiracy theorist, a Trump supporter, or anything else. These things are just nakedly true.
Now once you've acknowledged these things as simply true, you can get to the question of "is this a problem?" - To be clear, in my opinion: no these things are not necessarily a problem. Yes the US runs bio weapons labs in Ukraine. We do it for reasons that people have indicated in some of their comments. These are defensive in nature.
There's a question about if human beings generally should be studying this, but that is independent to the question about the US running biolabs (studying weapons...so...bioweapons labs) in Ukraine. You HAVE to acknowledge these truths. It should be obvious that having a good ability to separate truth from fiction is the way to defend against the type of propaganda that I outlined above. Twisting yourselves into knots to not accidentally acknowledge some information which is blatantly true, is how the propaganda is allowed to spread. It is an attack on your sense making ability. Please stop doing this.
It seems like we're getting into some really weird definitions of weapons if that doesn't count as a "weapon".
Actually it does. Any lab that works on viruses of mass destruction are bioweapon labs with a trivial amount of objective shift.
Here's an article from 2007 about the CDC shutting down a "bioweapons lab" at Texas A&M University: https://www.wired.com/2007/07/the-centers-for/
Texas A&M wasn't creating bioweapons, they were studying them as part of a bioweapons defense program.
Edit: parent changed the text of their post from "US does have biolabs in Ukraine" to "US has an interest in biolabs in Ukraine"
I understand the urge to apply neutrality here but the fact is that the priors simply do not support a good faith interpretation of what we know is coming from the Russian state propaganda apparatus.
You said “There is nothing in the video saying the biolabs belong to the US, stop spreading conspiracy misinformation.”
I pointed out that there is in fact US DoD funded research in Ukrainian bio labs.
I have no idea if they are making bioweapons. I can’t prove that they are, you can’t prove that they aren’t. But I do know that Victoria Nuland stated in that twitter video that whatever they got in those labs can be used as bioweapons, so on that point I think it’s an argument of semantics.
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/05-829-Ukra...
Also any time the DoD (or any gov entity anywhere in the world) claims “we are doing this only for the seemingly good purpose A” there is generally a much bigger purpose B, C, and D that they don’t mention.
The U.S. also has biolabs in China, or funds them, or has enough involvement that it's equivalent to what they're doing in Ukraine so maybe Russia should invade China next using their own biolab justification.
Except this is not a justification used for invasion.
Maybe they could invade China for some drummed up reason (reunite the communist world idk) and then find these labs and talk about them there too?
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/05-829-Ukra...
That's GlobalTimes. I know they are both state media, but we are talking CGTN here.
> citing Russia media outlets and officials
I bet I can find them quoting US or Ukrainian media outlets and officials too. Should media not report what countries fighting a war claim? It's not like Western media consistently gets it right (e.g. deaths on snake island) by reporting only the pro-Ukrainian side.
> They peddle Russia’s claim that US has bioweapons
Why link to Newsweek instead of the actual CGTN post? I am less interested what Western media claims CGTN says than proof of what they actually say.
But, hey, the CGTN post is very easy to find, given the Newsweek article: https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=CGTN+russia+Igor+Konashenkov
You're acting like an anti-Ukrainian position exists, to be discussed.
What position other than pro-victim would you like to see reported on, please?
It seems like you're very new here, and the only thing you've discussed is the Russia situation, or trying to make it look like it's reasonable to listen to state media to learn what's happening, by contrasting state propaganda to a disgraced magazine that was sold for a dollar to the daily beast ten years ago, then to religious extremists
Russia has invaded another country without provocation, and is shelling civilians, children's schools, hospitals, and grocery lines.
What pro-Russian spin would you like to see, specifically, please, new anonymous account? Thanks.
----
An aside: I am of the opinion that if websites like Facebook and Twitter don't get their fake account problem under control, laws will be coming to do it for them, and if those laws are written by politicians, it's going to go really badly for UGC websites
Point being you don't need the quotes. There are definitely DoD built biolabs, and a surprisingly large amount of them.
[1] - https://ua.usembassy.gov/embassy/kyiv/sections-offices/defen...
[2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20170211022339/https://photos.st...
They seem to point to medical research to fight against diseases, rather than “biomilitary activities”.
There is no conspiracy here unless you just want to see it.
At the time, pandemic influenza was the best guess, but the point of the platform and the program was to rapidly address any pathogen.
US has changed to a limited interpretation of what a biological weapon is, and considers non-deadly biological agents to not be bioweapons when it comes to treaties banning them.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121204112835/http://www.fas.or...
The US does research into chemical and bio-weapons they do not consider to be lethal:
https://web.archive.org/web/20121119043547/http://www.fas.or...
> The U.S. Department of Defense’s Biological Threat Reduction Program collaborates with partner countries to counter the threat of outbreaks (deliberate, accidental, or natural) of the world’s most dangerous infectious diseases. The program accomplishes its bio-threat reduction mission through development of a bio-risk management culture; international research partnerships; and partner capacity for enhanced bio-security, bio-safety, and bio-surveillance measures. The Biological Threat Reduction Program’s priorities in Ukraine are to consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern and to continue to ensure Ukraine can detect and report outbreaks caused by dangerous pathogens before they pose security or stability threats
Where would these pathogens and toxins that need to be secured be coming from?
Bioweapons defense is pretty fuzzy, as until recently you generally had to study a strain for a long amount of time to develop and test an effective vaccine. Which means you have to have a representative strain. Which means you either need to get one... or create your best guess.
All while the environment and/or your adversary are doing god knows what out of your sight.
Miracles like a vaccine-in-a-year don't just happen. They build on decades of research and preparedness.
The two hypotheses about the origins of COVID are natural (wet market) and accidental (lab leak). Back when “The War On Terror” was the political Zeitgeist-meme, there was at least one anthrax attack (deliberate), and I remember suggestions that terrorists might also try to trigger foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks or algal blooms (it may not surprise you to learn that the latter was suggested by someone looking for government funding for their existing research into algal blooms).
"Of the $41.91 million, $37.61 million was awarded to EcoHealth Alliance by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which describes its mission as “to protect the United States and its allies by enabling the DoD and international partners to detect, deter, and defeat WMD and threat networks.”"
https://nypost.com/2021/07/01/pentagon-gave-millions-to-ecoh...
I wonder why when the pandemic hit, there was literally zero useful info coming out of all these threat reduction programs?
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/16/no-white-...
I obviously don't know what the labs mentioned by the parent poster were doing but the fact that the US DoD (or any country's department of defense) does medical research should be about as surprising as the fact that they do research on explosives.
I also worked for a company which had several novel therapeutics for agents commonly used in bioweapons in their pipeline and the DoD was funding parts of that as well.
So the DOD funding research could mean it thought the research could mean it had potential as a weapon, or a defense against weapons, or was just a random thing being funded to promote basic science research.
You can't really draw a line from "This was funded by this department, so it had this intent" in US science funding.
Plus historically, there are plenty of wars where disease was more deadly than enemy combatants.
They are dual use research. Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. Research for rockets is the same for icbms. It's why we are so keen on preventing iran from developing their nuclear energy program. It's why we are worried about north korea's "space" program. The same thing with cybersecurity. By learning to prevent cyberattacks, you are also learning how to carry out cyberattacks. And vice versa. You can't research against diseases/viruses/etc without procuring, creating and developing them.
Edited to replace virus with "pathogen".
Unless your primary concern is defensive against biowarfare rather than natural outbreaks...which is indeed a priority for military research h.
Production of Bacillus anthracis spores for weapons use in the Soviet Union was in progress when an accident resulted in a release of spores that killed at least 66 people:
You can try and find specific counter examples, but I think the idea that most virus research, and scientific research in general, could likely be repurposed for bad or good, is probably pretty accurate in general.
Policing "bad" science while allowing "good" science is probably an impossible task.
This is not entirely accurate. It's possible to run nuclear reactors without the capability for nuclear weapons - which, up until the collapse of Iran's deal with Western powers, was exactly what they were (meant to be) doing. You have to deliberately enrich uranium well past the point where it's useful for reactors before you start getting into weapon-making territory.
Nobody would characterise a nuclear energy plant in a Western country as a "nuclear weapons research facility", not least because the uranium involved is nowhere near weapons-grade.
Of course, no one characterizes nuclear energy plants in Western countries as nuclear weapons research facilities, but it's perfectly reasonable to say they are dual-use. This isn't limited to nuclear energy, the term is also applicable to various things such as civilian aviation, image recognition technology, advanced metallurgy, camera technology etc...
So I don't think you really disagree with who you're replying to. Yes, the facilities aren't exactly what you need, but they're a big step towards that, and generally research in the domain has a fair degree of applicability.
Any BSL4 lab can have multiple uses depending on the mission of the employees. They can easily be used as bioweapon labs, I haven't seen any good pushback on this idea.
By nobody you mean everybody, especially everybody outside of the west? It's funny how blinded we are by our false sense of moral superiority.
> not least because the uranium involved is nowhere near weapons-grade.
Last I checked, doesn't take that much technical effort or time going from "civilian" to militar/weapons grade. There are an entire class of nations classified as nuclear latent powers - about 20 or so nations who could piggy back off their "civilian" nuclear industry to nuclears weapons in weeks/months. Surprisingly, the list is made up primarily of western nations ( which nobody would characterize as having nuclear weapons research facilities ) and japan/south korea/etc.
This is absurdly untrue.
This is an error to the level of claiming that programming language research is the same as video game manual writing, and then trying to justify it as "but they both involve computers"
Having labs is not equal to having bioweapons
edit: removed snark
Ukraine warns Chernobyl nuclear plant is without power [1]
Now, most experts say there is nothing to worry about. Why did they report this unless to imply that it somehow poses a threat to the world? Or did they also mention that there are post offices in Ukraine without power?
Very similar, ain't it?
[1] https://www.axios.com/ukraine-chernobyl-nuclear-plant-power-...
HN discussion on that specific article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30614163
That is the part that is clearly the fake propaganda. The US and Ukraine are not working together to design a disease meant to genetically target Russians, like from the movie James Bond.
No its not. It is not plausible at all. Just think about this for a second.
People in eastern europe are genetically similar to russians. Why would they make a super weapon, to kill off people with slavic DNA, when such a super weapon would target much of its own population as well?
The conspiracy doesn't make any sense even if you assume supervillian levels of evilness.
You seem to have followed one unecessary qualifier with another one immediately.
I suspect this is somewhat intentional because it's absolutely not required where the vast majority of bioweapons are concerned.
Its not an unnecessary qualify because the "targeting russian DNA" is a common part of many of the conspiracies and what I was referring to.
A common conspiracy going around is that there were bio-weapons meant to target Russian DNA, which doesn't make any sense.
Edit: for Example, here is one english speaking, moderately sized influencer, repeating this conspiracy about the targeting of Russian DNA. https://clips.twitch.tv/SpicyClearFriesItsBoshyTime-9Ap6YN1H...
I don't keep track of every place that is spreading each specific conspiracy theory. But the point of this example, is to just give a one-off example describing this conspiracy in general.
I can only see it as an attempt to deflect, undermine, distract from the core points of this exchange, which makes it a bad faith approach on your part, in my opinion.
Instead, it is other people attempting to deflect from the very real issue of conspiracies being peddled by these bad actors.
So yes, the original point about all of this, is about fake propaganda being spread. And yes that is an issue, as demonstrated by the example that I gave.
You and others just have to admit that yes fake propaganda, being spread by bad actors, is a real issue, which is the core point.
The idea that these bad actors are speading a bunch of mis-info, and half truths, to justify an invasion should be pretty obvious, IMO.
The Department of Defense is a misleading name since it spent a large % of its historical budget on offense and invasion. The use of the words 'defensive and defense' are always misleading in the US context and should not be taken literally in my opinion. US history makes this clear.
If such activity is just business as usual for the DoD in every country, then it certainly weakens the case for anything nefarious happening specifically in relation to Ukraine.
Here's the international agreement establishing the relationship: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/05-829-Ukra....
There are biolabs in the Ukraine, as confirmed by Nuland in the Senate hearings. Whether they have bio-weapons or medical research, who knows, but you can perhaps understand that the Russians might be concerned?
What's really amazing about this story that only days ago it was painted as a Q-anon theory. Turns out it was real. We are neck deep in propaganda from all directions, but most people think it's only coming from the Russian side.
And at this point, the Russians have demostrated a clear willingness to lie about anything in pursuit of their geopolitical agenda (see: months of explicit denial of preparing for a Ukrainian invasion, by all levels of their government, in official statements).
US history says the DOD, Pentagon, & the CIA are just as willing, if not more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPe5f5dcrGE (Why Leaders Lie?)
Iraq was an autocracy that had previously invaded its neighbors multiple times and used chemical weapons against its own ethnic minorities.
Ukraine is a democracy, and has no recent history of aggression.
*At worst case. At best, they didn't verify too closely intelligence that said what they wanted it to say.
[0] https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1501313109520175104
https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/05-829-Ukra...
quite ironic
According to Newsweek, but the CGTN article actually doesn't use "bioweapons".
CGTN only calls it “military biological program”. So technically not the same, but of course CGTN wants to give the same impression to keep spreading misinformation.
Yes, but this comment chain is about CGTN, so when switching let's keep it clear.
> course CGTN wants to give the same impression to keep spreading misinformation.
That's the least charitable interpretation, yes. However, I see no lies in their article.
edit:
You specifically said:
> They peddle Russia’s claim that US has bioweapons
They meaning CGTN.
The tweet is from Neil Cybart and WSJ. You may know him as one of the more accurate Apple analysts. And most people still to this day think either China miscalculated it, or China's official stance is somewhat unclear. ( Paul Graham )
And as usual, Benedict Evans has much better take on the situation. Mostly likely because of his major in History.
[1] https://twitter.com/neilcybart/status/1500825861242724352
Which is?
That's Twitter for you...
They get a far weaker Russia much more dependent on them now economically. Russia is rich in fossil fuels which China lacks and has some advantages in defence and space tech which China can easily get their hands on.
CCP might not be that confident about taking Taiwan now but they get a massive economic boost and a possible big brother relationship with Russia now.
That is only if they would realise it, if the Russian propoganda works at home, China might be the only true friend they have in the tough times to come.
I can’t claim to be an expert, but it seems pretty clear to me that China’s action or inaction on Russia will have huge implications on their next decade and beyond.
Russia is inconsequential compared to their trade and economy but not clout.
But looking at the overall figures is just partial picture. China imported over 10M barrels of oil per day last year. [1] At current prices of Brent, i.e. an import bill of $1.4 billion per day or $500 billion per year. Imagine getting a discount on that.
Also, Russia still has tech advantages over China in some areas, the best fighter aircraft in PLA's force uses Russian made engines. They rely on Russia for their Air defense systems, the S400.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-crude-oil...
I think it's a good idea not to look at Twitter OR Apple analysts to help understand the Ukraine situation. Twitter is a perfect place to get breaking news, hot takes, and memes. Apple analysts may be very intelligent people. But, I want to wait for longer, more meticulous writing by people on the ground, or people with a deep background in the domain, and a long time to think about it.
Trying to read China from what they do on the outside, such as diplomatic speeches and UN action, compared to what they do on the inside with their State / social media, supply chain and business support shows a completely different picture.
China has not only banned all pro Ukraine speeches on their Social media, showing support of Russia and claiming it is war started by US. If any of these have soften since the war started or toned down one might argue China could be changing stance. But they didn't. They double down on Russia. The Chinese are so furious to the point it has now become a positive ( or negative ) feedback loop within their own circle.
I am baffled as to why most in the west dont see it. Even when presented as it is.
I was actually surprised China didn’t vote against the UN Resolution by the Generally Assembly condemning Russia’s violation of the UN Charter by the use of force and violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
Though China was 1 of 35 Countries to abstain on the vote, the fact that they didn’t vote against the UN Resolution with Russia and 5 other Countries speaks loudly and volumes about China’s political unwillingness to support Russia’s acts in contravention of the UN Charter.
Furthermore, China did not support Russia in a similar Resolution before the UN Security Council leaving Russia as the sole permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto power to vote against the Resolution.
If anything it looks like China’s lack of political will to expressly support Russia in the UN General Assembly and Security Council seems to have legitimately surprised Russia. However, it is very difficult to discern whether China miscalculated the response of the international community or they simply played Russia by riding both sides of the fence until push came to shove. My guess is the later as I’m sure Russia was cautiously optimistic about China’s support while simultaneously aware of the likelihood they could not count of China, and I would go so far as to say the odds are Russia even has military contingency plans in place in the instance China becomes opportunistic with respect to their own boarder disputes with Russia during the chaos.
These arent the only two choices, this binary approach is more reflective of your limited thinking than reality.
Abstaining from votes that can't be won speaks volumes. Why take a position when not taking one is just as effective?
There is a reason people don't always show their folded hands in poker.
The UN General Assembly Resolution condemning Russia overwhelmingly passed.
The UN Security Council Resolution on the other hand never had a chance of passing, but the international community still went forward with the vote they didn’t collectively “fold” knowing no matter what it wouldn’t pass.
In either case a member of the UN abstaining from a vote is not the same as folding in poker, it’s not about winning or losing as shown by the willingness to submit a Resolution for vote by the Security Council, because its about standing in the international community, where abstaining on a vote is itself a political statement not a “fold” that will hide their hand.
>the international community still went forward with the vote they didn’t collectively “fold”
We were talking about China's vote specifically. Your unecessary and unwarranted pivot is very telling.
>it’s not about winning or losing as shown by the willingness to submit a Resolution for vote by the Security Council
I disagree and this is an assumption on your part, not a forgone conclusion.
You’ve had a bizarre tone replying to me from the beginning, and yet your post reveals you don’t even know how the UN Security Council works if you don’t agree that the Security Council vote wasn’t a forgone conclusion. Feel free to ask if you don’t know why it was impossible to pass.
China has, very consistently for decades now, maintained that every nation's borders are Super Duper Sacred and Never Ever to be challenged. That every sovereign nation can do whatever it wants within its UN-recognized borders. This is for obvious reasons over Xinjiang and Taiwan and Tibet and etc.
Abstention was their only realistic option. And quite in character. China abstains a great deal at the Security Council, if you look at the record.
Well, Ukraine's borders are recognised by UN and CCP respecting others borders is simply not true. Just ask their neighbours.
They have pretty good relations with both Russia and Ukraine, and are not involved in NATO, so they could position themselves as a deal broker.
By opening their whole economy and supply chains to Russia? Niel sounds clueless from the claim you posted.
A maybe reasonable guess would be that they, too, expected this war to be over before any large response from the West could be mustered. Then the whole thing would be out of the news-cycle relatively quickly, and while Russia would still be hit with harsh sanctions, China would have a) a russian economy even more dependent on them and b) a blueprint for what to expect in the case of war with Taiwan.
China's stance since the invasion isn't really unique though; India, Brazil, Vietnam and quite a few others also chose to abstain from the UN motion to condemn the invasion and call for an immediate ceasefire. - In fact, countries "representing" more than half the global population abstained. These countries also try to balance their response, while being pressured to show solidarity with Ukraine by their population internally.
Though perhaps they have to balance it with how it affects the world economy.
No.
Taiwan is seeing a massive increase in morale and defense interest [1]. The West has unified in a way not seen since World War II. If Xi sides with the baddies, he risks the stink rubbing off on him.
[1] https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/in-taiwan-putins-war-in-ukr...
In return they get to see what the West will do and what they'd do if China would to attack Taiwan. They get the cheap resources OP mentioned above, they get another country which depends on them and posting some Ads on Facebook won't hurt them. It's not like somebody would sanction them because of it.
Realistically seen, they'll be able to get away with much more and I'm sure they'll test that in the weeks to come.
I can't imagine "the West" sanctioning both a huge source for oil and gas AND a source for cheap manufactured goods and they know it too...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAVE_PAWS#In_Taiwanese_service
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_island_chain#United_Stat...
Every time I've heard a militant Chinese unification advocate talk about Taiwanese unification, they scoff at the idea that the Taiwanese would actually resist a PLA invasion. Now that possibility can't be ignored.
"You may not be interested in war, but war is very interested in you."
Recent events in Ukraine have made the Taiwanese less likely to tolerate the formation of foreign-affiliated groups like "Right Sector" or "Azov Battalion". There is also no area or population similar to Donbas where westernized Taiwanese could e.g. kill 14,000 people or burn down a trade union hall with lots of people inside.
Assuming that war is the natural state of humanity, which is only prevented by authoritarians in the employ of Raytheon, is a character flaw.
This was the dominant opinion with respect to Russia and Ukraine, including in Ukraine, until weeks, in some cases, days, prior to the invasion.
This is such a fragile time after 2 years of COVID for the global economy. Even the Belt and Road countries being dragged down with Russia can't be worth it to them.
Not to mention they have their own economic/banking issues that they were probably hoping for a strong global recovery to help out with.
At least that's the general feeling among Russian economists whom I've been reading lately.
While the West cannot "cut off" China as too much manufacturing has moved there, supporting Russia in this already has an impact on the reception of Chinese brands in the West. Perhaps less so in the US, but so far Chinese brands are quite popular in the EU. This could change quickly. Also this encourages to reduce the dependencies on China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split
Making Russia completely dependent on China economically will put a leash on Russia, effectively establishing it as a Chinese protectorate much like the Li–Lobanov Treaty made China a Russian protectorate.
China will not get sanctioned like Russia has. The world's dependence on Chinese manufacturing is like Europe's dependence on Russian gas, times ten.
Or, more precisely, it will get sanctioned like Russia has, but like the Russian sanctions, they will include exceptions for everything the West needs to buy from China, which is nearly everything.
China will trade Russia for wheat due to bad harvests. We are driving Russia into Chinese hands with currency and transactions. Too bad they have an dictator for life. He gambled and lost.
That dependence still creates a significant political risk, which the West is in a poorer position to manage.
> Keep in mind that China can't feed itself without the world. That is a much more dangerous dependence.
That would be a serious vulnerability, except the world probably isn't united enough for it to matter. For instance, my understanding is Russia is a major food exporter. Add in a conquered Ukraine and maybe a couple other countries and you might fill that gap.
Just some examples. Those lists are for the US but of course by no means is it exclusive to the US.
- https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/americas-mos... (linked for the list, not for "Obama" - obviously it is independent of who is president)
- https://en.everybodywiki.com/List_of_authoritarian_regimes_s...
- https://www.salon.com/2014/03/08/35_countries_the_u_s_has_ba...
And not to forget
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
It's not exclusive to the US of course, it was just easier to find links quickly. Here's an example with France:
- https://www.dw.com/en/french-support-for-chad-dictator-makes...
- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-14/france...
And the West may need get more comfortable with doing that, since we've seen some of the consequences. IMHO, sanctions against Belarus were probably a significant contributing factor to this war (i.e. they put Belarus in a position to be dominated by Putin, who took full advantage to support/strengthen his invasion of Ukraine).
I wonder if some middle ground is tenable (e.g. make a deal with a dictator that he will get full support for life, as long as he agrees his successor will be a properly democratic government).
Ultimately, democracy isn't just a way of organizing politically, it requires a culture that values/expects/demands democracy. If people don't value or demand democracy, then perhaps no amount of sanctions or toppling dictators is going to result in a reasonably democratic government, but conversely sanctions and toppling dictators probably isn't worsening the democratic prospect either (contrary to anti-Western propaganda and criticism).
This assumes that we won't make moves to mitigate this dependence in response to Russia's invasion. The US Innovation and Competition Act [1] likely has a much higher chance of passing today than it did prior to Russia's invasion. It calls for $250 billion investment in high tech manufacturing [2]. It has passed the Senate and is currently waiting in the House. I wouldn't be surprised to see the bill grow in scope.
[1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/126...
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-passes-bipa...
Nobody thought Russia would get sanctioned like Russia has.
There is no way China gets sanctioned for barely anything without years (decades ?) of re-industrialization of the west.
Well, at some point, I even think that China could make the entire west civilization collapse just by stopping their exportation.
At least it would push us to take reusing more seriously. Brutal decoupling from China could be really, probably extremely hard, but in a lot of aspects, intellectually interesting to watch.
How Europe will react to adapt the current crisis regarding fossils will also be really interesting. I'm just hoping that it will accelerate the de-carbonation of our energy sources. But it's just that, hopes.
Then the West retaliates by stopping their export to China of even more basic things like food. I'm guessing China needs food imports much more than the West needs cheap plastic wares, knock off products, and other less critical than food things.
Stopping the flow of just pork products to China may result in enormous unrest and it certainly wouldn't be a given that the CCP would be capable of quelling that.
[1]: https://www.fas.usda.gov/data/china-evolving-demand-world-s-...
[2]: https://www.worldstopexports.com/international-markets-for-i...
This. Both Xi and Putin chafe against the liberal order and see it as something in decline that stands in the way of their own goals.
China still does recognise Ukraine as independent in the sense it continues to push for respect of "territorial integrity". It's a key part of Chinese foreign policy, and is what China uses to maintain its false claim over Taiwan (which it sees as Beijing territory, notwithstanding that Taiwanese people see themselves as independent).
Yet it still refuses to condemn Russian aggression on the basis that Russia has "security concerns" which China considers legitimate and the result of the US/NATO.
Confused? So am I. The stance is confused and confusing. It explains why the Beijing narrative seems to change daily as it attempts to push and balance these seemingly irreconcilable views.
It isn’t that cut and dry. Most Taiwanese people prefer the status quo, surely by no small measure due to the fact that an outright declaration of independence would provoke China, but still, people who paint the picture as black and white like you have are either advancing an agenda or simply ignorant of the facts on the ground in Taiwan.
The status quo is that they are independent, see themselves as independent, but simply haven't made some outright declaration.
It can both be true that they see themselves as already being independent, and also that they don't want to make an outright declaration.
Specifically, the ruling party has said that they don't need to make an outright declaration, because they are already independent.
It is not the position of the opposition party, nor does it align with historical precedents. Treating it as the official policy of Taiwan without a higher level of support such as a popular referendum, proclamation, or amendment to the ROC constitution doesn’t pass the smell test (what happens if the KMT comes back into power? Is Taiwan no longer independent?). No major country outside of Taiwan recognizes it as an independent nation for a reason.
I should note that I am personally supportive of the idea of an independent Taiwan, but I’m also able to check my western bias.
I think you're conflating whether Taiwanese people see themselves as independent, on the one hand, and whether they wish to formally declare that, on the other.
"The majority of Taiwanese believe that Taiwan is already an independent country called the Republic of China. ... more than 70 percent of Taiwanese agree with this statement." [0]
Note that I never said the people of Taiwan want to formally declare independence, which may risk starting a war. I'm prepared to accept that many Taiwanese are content with a "status quo" of diplomatic ambiguity, but I never suggested otherwise.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/01/0...
Taiwan, the island, was once a part of territory claimed by Imperial China. Eventually, Taiwan was given to Japan in some war back in the day.
Right before WWII, civil war broke out. The Chinese Communist party wanted to overthrow the ROC and reform the government in their image. Then WWII happened and they agreed to pause the civil war to deal with the Japanese coming in from East.
WWII ended with the defeat of Japan and as part of the terms of surrender, Taiwan was given back to the ROC.
After WWII, the civil war was back on, but with the ROC having been significantly weakened by WWII. Eventually, the CCP overthrew the ROC on the mainland and formed the People's Republic of China (PRC), while the ROC fled to the island of Taiwan.
The PRC sees Taiwan as part of China thanks to the Japanese terms of surrender. Taiwan was ceded to the government of China, they are the government of China. QED, Taiwan is theirs.
The ROC sees themselves as the rightful government of China in exile. Yes, Taiwan belongs to China, but they are China. The PRC needs to give the mainland back to them.
Things have progressed since then. There are some on the island with different opinions these days.
The policy of the PRC and some factions in the ROC is the One-China policy. There is only one China, it includes the mainland and Taiwan. The only disagreement is about which government is legitimate.
Some in the ROC advocate a two-state solution, in which you'd have the PRC and ROC, each with their territories and that's that.
Then there are people in Taiwan who feel that they should be their own independent nation and not "Chinese" at all.
So basically, with regards to your question, the answer is every answer possible. I think the official position is One-China though. I think there's enough of that faction to make winning elections impossible if you explicitly reject it.
I think it’s important to add that Taiwan, like China, was an authoritarian state up until the 90s. The shift to democracy since then has given room for a lot of these different factions to take hold and develop on the island.
Like, I said, things have progressed. There's "One China", "Two Chinas", and "China and Taiwan".
I think the longer things remain as they are, the more likely it'll settle into a "China and Taiwan" situation as both sides just kind of tire of fighting an issue their great grandparents started.
And in any case the treaty doesn't allow for invasion upon the government being perceived as illegitimate. This is an aggressive war, considered since the end of WW2 to be the supreme international crime.
The problem still so far is everything done to hold Putin accountable is viewed by Russians as the West vs Russia. This invasion is viewed not as aggressive war, but liberating Ukraine from Nazis. Exactly what Putin says domestically.
And yes, most of the rest of the world recognizes Taiwan as a sovereign country, except formally they use language consistent with One China to avoid a row with China
From China's point of view, Taiwan is purely a question of Chinese sovereignty. They've never recognized the Taipei government and they try to sanction countries that do recognize Taiwan. The idea is that this "recognition limbo" leaves Taiwan under Chinese sovereignty by default.
Yet China has formally recognized Ukraine and its original post-Soviet borders. It's hard for them to now make the argument that Ukrainian sovereignty is meaningless but other countries must not interfere with Chinese sovereignty.
Personally, I think Putin is screwing over his own people almost as badly as people in Ukraine - in the long run. Ukraine will get a lot of love from the west, when the fighting is over.
You're mentioning China/India/Russia like they might be some minions, but taken together they have a population of about 3 billion people (out of ~8 billion the Earth now has) and a giant land surface (thanks to Russia, mostly).
Probably the Western US and Canada will also get dragged into this, economically speaking, for its own benefit.
What was the correct decision for Obama and its foreign policy advisers (they were the first ones to brand the "pivot to Asia" thing) in the early 2010s is also the right decision to take for today's Russia.
Without exports to Europa, Russia would be completely at the mercy of China. Russia only has a tiny economy compared to China, so if China decides to play games, there is not much Russia can do.
Given China's recent behavior, it is extremely likely that Russia will get deals to mainly benefit China.
> Russia only has a tiny economy compared to China, so if China decides to play games,
From Putin's perspective, or whomever will take his place, it's better to be at China's mercy compared to being at the West's mercy (as present economic sanctions demonstrate it was the case), as in China and Russia are a lot more close, ideologically speaking, compared with how Russia and the West compare. And Russia still has and will have nukes, there's no way for China to take some piece of Russia's Far East (which I know you didn't mention but is a point often made when it comes to the Russia-China relation).
Now they're basically compensating for Russia's mess (and won't ever let them forget that).
He was a blundering fool and his weakness contributed directly to the current situation in Ukraine, who he was willing to throw under the bus.
I think "the west" (if we can speak of that still, though maybe we can even more after this latest crisis in Ukraine) will likely need an internally coherent trading bloc to counteract the situation in the east.
That probably means a radical shift away from the China-Pacific trade push of the last 20-30 years and back towards a north-south and transatlantic route. My own country, Canada used to be a net food exporter, but now is a net importer, with large quantities of produce coming from China. It's going to have to change.
Billions have been spent trying (and mostly failing) to build pipelines to Pacific tidewater to export Canadian oil and gas (LNG) to China. We should have been sending it east. Germany could do with copious amounts of LNG right now, and the US and Canada could be providing it, but the planning wasn't there.
I can only hope the current crisis accelerates decarbonization in response -- but I fear the opposite will happen. All the "green energy" stocks I own are down, while oil and gas is up.
But also, the lines used by both regimes bear aesthetic resemblance to "anti-colonialist" and "anti-imperialist" narratives propagated by both the Stalinist and Maoist regimes in the past. Lots of "we're counteracting western aggression" [somewhat questionable here, Russia has never been under explicit military threat in this century] and "but the west does it too" [whataboutism, a diversion tactic]
They were hypocritical arguments back in the Soviet era, with the way the Soviets treated Poland or Afghanistan, etc. but are way more threadbare now, hollowed of any "substance" at all.
So I don't know how much of what is going on in China in regards to this is actually based on any geo-political strategy or how much of it is just reflexive fall-back to classic Maoist views of the west, a position against western imperialism.
Like, we want to see some global strategy here, but it's also quite likely that the people at the heads of these regimes are much more incompetent than we give them credit for, and playing a game infused with ideological grudges which are only partially understood in the west.
Clearly what is long-term good for China is continued peaceful trade with the west. Yes, there's tension around the basis of that, and how it is formulated. And "the west" certainly has its own aggressive colonialist and imperialist dominance which China feels compelled to counteract. But it seems to me there is no reason for China to toss the table over and stir up this level of chaos. It feels extremely ideological.
Putin's rambling speech before the invasion -- justifying it -- referenced old debates within the Soviet past... he directly referenced and attacked Lenin and Lenin's positions (and Trotsky's -- a Ukrainian Jew) on the "national question" and national self-determination. Essentially from his POV Ukraine "only existed" because of the early Bolshevik positions on ethnicities etc.
Classical Leninism, pre-Stalin, was concerned with granting federal independence to various Soviet ethnicities, to explicitly take apart Tsarist imperialism, and establish what they saw as a socialist federalism and this went along with an internationalist focus as well, as they hoped their revolution would spread to the west (and it did, sort of, in Germany and Hungary, but fizzled out.)
After the failure of revolution in the west, and after Lenin died, Stalin came to power, brutally purged most of the old Bolsheviks, and instituted a kind of revanchist policy and restored major aspects of the old Tsarist pre-revolutionary Russian bureaucracy and internal policies. He paid some lip service to Lenin's position on the national question but basically committed internal genocide (and forced relocations) on various minority populations in the USSR, and was responsible for millions of deaths in Ukraine. Sort of ironic given he himself was of a minority ethnicity (Georgian) origin.
Anyways, in Putin's speech he said explicitly that Lenin's position on national self-determination was incompatible with a functional state. And he's right. Lenin's position was explicitly against the kind of (authoritarian, Russo-supremacist) state Putin wants, and Stalin wanted, which is why Stalin had to murder all the old guard Bolsheviks while committing genocide against Ukrainians (and others) and Putin has to invade Ukraine and god knows who else next. Their image/fantasy of what Russia is or has to be, requires it. And given China's behaviour in Tibet and Xinjiang, they have similar perspectives.
They are ancient neighbors and have a vested interest in helping maintain global geopolitical harmony, just like all other globalized nations.
Plenty of other things, I’m sure.
That depends on where you sit, doesn't it? Balance of power. The West constantly talking about spreading democracy around the globe isn't appealing to non-democratic governments.
Arguably, the level of pro-democracy proselytizing could be construed as an act of war through clandestine psychological operations.
The Cold War has returned. Western politicians may refuse to see it, but reality has a way of making itself felt.
The USSR fell apart, but the US kept building bases, toppling regimes, and expanding.
For now that works for them.
There is no all sides. a big fat kid beating up a skinny kid when that skinny kid did NOTHING to the big fat kid.
where's all sides? when you punch someone first regardless of your reason. you lose all moral high ground. especially Russia's reason is absurd.
i don't understand why people believe there is any sides to this war.
There are always "all sides". Always. To deny this is to deny reality.
> a big fat kid beating up a skinny kid when that skinny kid did NOTHING to the big fat kid.
Nobody believes this. Even you don't. So why do you say it? Russia didn't all of a sudden invade ukraine for no reason. There is obviously a reason. Whether you believe the casus belli is justified is another matter.
> you lose all moral high ground.
There is no moral high ground in war. Only winners and losers. And the winners will decide what the moral high ground is.
> i don't understand why people believe there is any sides to this war.
Because it's a fact. Every war has multiple angles to it because every war has different sides. Denying the obvious isn't going to help. Maybe it'll convince the uneducated. But you aren't going to convince intelligent people with such a zealous argument.
Or maybe Russia fanned the conflict over the years, supporting separatists and paving the way into this invasion. To have reasons and excuses for it...
I would argue it is not "unprovoked". By incorporating Ukraine, NATO will have a direct adjacent border with Russia head to head, and missiles will be placed along the border, right at Russia's doorstep, what a stupid strategy for world peace. Putin has told us over many years it's unacceptable for the Russians. Think when USSR tried to place missiles in Cuba.
Edit: for folks who clearly disagree, I'd like to recommend a speech by John Mearsheimer, which is currently gaining 3M views per day, now at 19M: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
It's absolutely 100% Russian aggression. They've invaded a sovereign country that they had a treaty with to not attack.
Who is likely to invade a neighbor, Poland or Russia?
Not Poland. So, not provocative.
And Russia is definitely doing an unprovoked invasion.
Except NATO never incorporated Ukraine, nor did they want to. Ukraine asked and were told no.
> a direct adjacent border with Russia head to head
There's always a direct NATO line. Ironically, if Russia annexes Ukraine and Belarus (as seems to be there goal) there will be a direct border between Russia and NATO.
> It's definitely unacceptable for Russia, remember what happened when USSR tried to place missiles in Cuba?
Back then long-range ICBMs didn't exist in large quantities. Nor did missile submarines or other assured second strike capability. The calculus has changed and proximity is no longer the valuable thing it once was.
Besides that, NATO doesn't put missiles in every member state. They aren't in Latvia/Lithuania/etc.
Becoming part of NATO is a sovereign decision for a country.
But I guess "sovereignty" is an hard concept for imperialists to understand.
> Remember what happened when USSR tried to place missiles in Cuba?
Yes, there was no war. What is your point?
You should look up "Russian submarine captain who saved the world"
So they are allowed to push their narrative onto Westerners, but the inverse is not allowed?
I don't really blame China for realpolitik while trying to play catch up here, but I do wish they'd stop their expansionism. They already have enough people and resources to be the world #1 economy. Also the human rights violations are a bit of a mystery to me --- what's the point of a strong economy if people are suffering? Hopefully that will resolve itself in the same way the US used slave labor to bootstrap itself (unjustly, but it is what it is) then later banned it.
I personally am against censorship of any kind. And while that in principle means allowing propaganda garbage from all sides, it also means not censoring domestic "propaganda"(which could be anything depending on your reference) or material. People dislike this because having a personal filter is hard, but the alternative is arguably worse if you only allow a certain side.(which goes back to the first point of fascism by collusion)
As an American company, sure. I'm not sure it's that easy if you consider yourself a global company. There is support (or at least acceptance) for this invasion, including parts of Ukraine.
What is political propaganda is a very… political question.
Good thing that's not the issue here. The issue is where it comes from. It can be political- I don't like that it's foreign. I don't think freedom of speech means letting known foreign propaganda run hog wild on your platforms and control your information.
Some of us are old enough to remember when the US Intelligence community lied through NYTimes and NPR to drag us into the Iraq war. (Also the first Golf war. Also the Vietnam war.)
If you only care about foreign propaganda you’re still going to have a lot of evil done. And given that the US is the worlds last super power our own internal propaganda machine is pretty important.
I can't speak for the previous commenter, but I do not understand the implied complexity of bringing up those two examples. I would absolutely agree with removing them, just as much as removing propaganda ads from Chinese state media.
The only evidence is photoshopped maps. No one ever has a list of addresses to verify, ha.
https://ua.usembassy.gov/embassy/kyiv/sections-offices/defen...
It’s almost like the population has laughed at the prospect of going to war to defeat a Jewish Nazi and now they are scrambling to post rationalize.
Not sure how this bigger game being played out.
Btw short term asking china to help … it its so ridiculous but pop up so many times it is not even funny. What happen china really can deliver and work with Russia what then …
Also, banning CGTN is not the way, just like banning RT wasn't. I can understand banning demonstrably false misinformation but that should be content specific, complete RT ban doesn't sit right with me.
Economist has published articles stating how Iraq war was justified or NYT with their WMD propoganda. RT was doing it at a massive scale but it doesn't seem right nonetheless.
War time: This foreign government bought ADS! They're promoting propaganda and influencing our policy, election, populace! My own government (which only tells the truth) must stop this from happening.
Just, Devil's Advocate, but why can't it be both?