Russia and Ukraine

[Belacqua]

Cambridge University study on how the global south views the war:

https://go.ind.media/webmail/546932/1252...43cd2cc731

Anglophone media suggest that "the world" is aligned against Russia, but this is not true.

Important quote from the study:

A recent survey published by Nature Energy states that up to 140 million people could be pushed into extreme poverty due to the higher energy prices that have come about over the past year.

Soaring energy prices not only directly impact energy bills, but they also lead to upward price pressures on all supply chains and consumer items, including food and other necessities. This hurts the developing countries even more than it hurts the West.

The West can sustain the war “as long as it takes” since they have the financial resources and the capital markets to do so. But the Global South does not have the same luxury. A war for the future of European security has the potential of devastating the security of the entire world.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Cambridge University study on how the global south views the war:

https://go.ind.media/webmail/546932/1252...43cd2cc731

Anglophone media suggest that "the world" is aligned against Russia, but this is not true.

Important quote from the study:

And again more countries are against Russia's invasion than for it. And if they really wanted someone to blame for their poverty that would be Russia for starting the war in the first place. Also one wonders how they would feel if Russia invaded them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Cambridge University study on how the global south views the war:

https://go.ind.media/webmail/546932/1252...43cd2cc731

Anglophone media suggest that "the world" is aligned against Russia, but this is not true.

Important quote from the study:

A recent survey published by Nature Energy states that up to 140 million people could be pushed into extreme poverty due to the higher energy prices that have come about over the past year.

Soaring energy prices not only directly impact energy bills, but they also lead to upward price pressures on all supply chains and consumer items, including food and other necessities. This hurts the developing countries even more than it hurts the West.

The West can sustain the war “as long as it takes” since they have the financial resources and the capital markets to do so. But the Global South does not have the same luxury. A war for the future of European security has the potential of devastating the security of the entire world.

Damned shame Russia started this war that will have such results, don't you agree?

[The Architect Of Fate]

My favorite part of this shit article is this 

December 2021 when Russia proposed revised security treaties for Europe that could have prevented the war and which were rejected by the West. The peace negotiations of April 2022 in Istanbul were also rejected by the West in part to “weaken” Russia. And now the entire world is paying the price for an invasion that the Western media like to call “unprovoked” and which could have been avoided.

Lol, it wasn't rejected to 'weaken " Russia. It was rejected because it was an unreasonable shit deal that no sane people would accept. Sorry peace at any cost is a stupid philosophy and  Krishen Mehta needs to yank his head out of the clouds.No matter how you look at this Russia started the war. And Russia is the one making them pay the price for Putin's ego.


Why the revisions proposed were insanity and why NATO was 100% in the right to reject them.

https://go.ind.media/webmail/546932/1252...43cd2cc731

[The Architect Of Fate]

But remember it's the evil west that's Ukraine's problem

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukrai...K820140430

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-oli...1670338956

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, as long as "the world" isn't aligned against a genocidal russian invasion, it's probably kosher. I mean, honestly, if it doesn't bother people in south america then wtf are ukrainians complaining about anyway?

[Silver]

Pence breaks with DeSantis over Ukraine position: Putin will not stop at Ukraine

The Hill

[Leonardo17]

Cambridge University study on how the global south views the war:

https://go.ind.media/webmail/546932/1252...43cd2cc731

Anglophone media suggest that "the world" is aligned against Russia, but this is not true.

Important quote from the study:

A recent survey published by Nature Energy states that up to 140 million people could be pushed into extreme poverty due to the higher energy prices that have come about over the past year.

Soaring energy prices not only directly impact energy bills, but they also lead to upward price pressures on all supply chains and consumer items, including food and other necessities. This hurts the developing countries even more than it hurts the West.

The West can sustain the war “as long as it takes” since they have the financial resources and the capital markets to do so. But the Global South does not have the same luxury. A war for the future of European security has the potential of devastating the security of the entire world.

As far I can see, it is China / not Russia who has started this “charm offensive” (or  so called “peace plan”) in an attempt to try to win over the global south. And it’s not an empty attempt because countries like Brasil, India or South-Africa do not entirely understand the existential issue in this war that they may see as “too far away” from them. But the US is making efforts to convince them otherwise. And this is very important because the Chino-Russian influence in West Africa is clearly disruptive. There are many people who have to flee advancing “Jihadi” groups like Boko-Haram in countries like Chad and Niger because local dictators preferred to work with Wagner rather than the stability promoting French and German troops there.  (https://reporting.unhcr.org/west-central-africa)
 
   The position of China is also changing rapidly. 20 years ago it was a (yes) authoritarian state that was mostly inner economic growth rather than ambitious political expansion. Today it is clearly moving toward a much disruptive role in the world + inner balances of the CCP are said to have been changed toward more authoritarianism since Xi-Chi-Ping came to power. And this is also something big. Because if you want economic growth, you have to want peace. So how can Xi be promoting economic growth if he decides to provide weapons to the Russian? With about 300,000 – 400,000 causalities already this number will easily move toward the million within a year or so. So what is China even doing?
 
   By the way there are “No to War” demonstrations in Germany today. So let’s face it: no one wants this WWI 2.0 right now, but where is the solution?
 
And here is a nice time-lapse on the Ukraine war I found today:

[Belacqua]

Leonardo17As far I can see, it is China / not Russia who has started this “charm offensive” (or  so called “peace plan”) in an attempt to try to win over the global south.

Do you mean the peace plan that China proposed in the last few days? Is this an attempt to win over the global south? Because it looks like a proposal that would stop Ukrainians from dying.
China has been investing heavily in various countries in the global south. They build infrastructure and buy resources. This has been going on for a while now, so if you want to call that a charm offensive I guess that makes sense. But it's business -- buying and selling. 

Nearly every country in the global south imports more goods from China than anywhere else. Worldwide, China now sells about as many cars as Germany does, and more than the US.

And it’s not an empty attempt because countries like Brasil, India or South-Africa do not entirely understand the existential issue in this war that they may see as “too far away” from them. But the US is making efforts to convince them otherwise. And this is very important because the Chino-Russian influence in West Africa is clearly disruptive. There are many people who have to flee advancing “Jihadi” groups like Boko-Haram in countries like Chad and Niger because local dictators preferred to work with Wagner rather than the stability promoting French and German troops there.  (https://reporting.unhcr.org/west-central-africa)

I don't see in the page at the link where it says that China or Russia have been "disruptive." They have become more popular in Africa and South America than the former colonial powers. China, for example, built a deep-water port in one country that the US was bombing at the same time. It's not hard to see which influence would be more popular. 

Look at it this way: people in Laos think of America as the country that dropped more bombs on them than were dropped on Europe in all of WWII. And they look at China as the country that built them a high speed railroad that is better than anything in the US.

 
   The position of China is also changing rapidly. 20 years ago it was a (yes) authoritarian state that was mostly inner economic growth rather than ambitious political expansion. Today it is clearly moving toward a much disruptive role in the world + inner balances of the CCP are said to have been changed toward more authoritarianism since Xi-Chi-Ping came to power. And this is also something big. Because if you want economic growth, you have to want peace. So how can Xi be promoting economic growth if he decides to provide weapons to the Russian? With about 300,000 – 400,000 causalities already this number will easily move toward the million within a year or so. So what is China even doing? 

I don't understand how China's role will be "disruptive." They have enormous economic growth, and they haven't been involved in a shooting war for decades. 

Also I'm curious where you hear that Xi is more authoritarian. Polls in China show that far more people in China consider their country to be a responsive democracy than Americans do. You have to remember that a great deal of what you read in the anglophone media is false. The widely-repeated story that the Chinese government has a "social credit" system to rate people's behavior, for example, is complete fiction. My source for this: the people I talked to at universities in Beijing, Nanking, and Shangdong. The Chinese people I travelled with when I went to Confucius' house and tomb. The Chinese people I climbed Tai Shan with. The Chinese students at my grad school. And English-speaking independent journalists who have lived in China for years. 

There's a lot of talk about China selling weapons to Russia, but so far it's all talk. Is it bad to provide weapons to a country at war? Because I can name a few that have done more than talk. 

You call China's proposed peace plan a "charm offensive," but if both sides followed it there would be peace. The US immediately said they wouldn't do it. What is America even doing? 

 
   By the way there are “No to War” demonstrations in Germany today. So let’s face it: no one wants this WWI 2.0 right now, but where is the solution?

The solution is to stop fighting. To stop enabling the fighting. To realize that both sides have legitimate security concerns, and to address those through negotiations. New elections in Ukraine to replace the officials put in office by Victoria Nuland -- undo the pro-American coup done in 2014. Have Biden stop bragging in public about controlling Ukraine's domestic criminal investigations. 

If you want the war to continue until you get to a condition you consider favorable to your side, you are pro-war. The people demonstrating in Germany want the war to stop right away.

[The Grand Nudger]

Russia has no legitimate security concerns that invading ukraine has anything to do with, stop it. I suppose we at least agree that the solution is to stop fighting. Maybe you'd fly over and tell the russians to put down their weapons and go home?