Personally I view Russian culture as more similar to European and even American culture than Chinese, yes Russia is authoritarian but apart from that they seem very different to me. They have always been a bit different than the rest of Europe but still much more culturally European than Chinese.

I think they would be an ideal partner to counter Chinese power in the region if relations weren't so poor with the West. Japan can only do so much.

But we are supposed to be okay with being in range of Russian nukes with a similar delivery time (if launched from Kaliningrad)? Fucking hell, Russian pundits are even boasting on Russian TV all the time how they're gonna nuke Berlin/Paris/London and that there is nothing the weak, decadent West can do about it, yada yada.

Also, let's not forget that this whole conflict exploded when Ukraine wanted to join the EU, not NATO!

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 8 2022 07:05pm

Big misunderstanding. Xi Jinping isn't a singular driving force that is forcing an entire civilization to maneuver the world. The CPC has almost 100 million members (it's not easy to join, as you may think with that number), and decisions are made collectively. It's the largest deliberative body in the world, but one organized along the principles of democratic centralism, meaning once decisions have been made everyone is expected to do their part to carry out the agenda. Xi has less executive power than most elected leaders in the West, certainly less than an American president or anyone in the commonwealth (Westminster system has very few constraints on power).


Russia never threatened nuclear war. They claimed they were facing nuclear threats from the West/UA, and reiterated that they have the ability to engage in kind on that front and restated Russian nuclear doctrine. Russian nuclear doctrine doesn't allow for nuclear first strikes unless an army is threatening to sack Moscow, basically. Every article saying that Putin threatened nuclear war is lying to you, go read the transcripts, go read their nuclear doctrine.


He'll always have a place of positive view in China because he led the party during it's liberation of China. I think the general view is like that of DXP's view of Stalin: 70% good, 30% bad. I think a lot of Chinese people view later Mao as considerably less good than early Mao, lol.

The GCPR is generally seen as mostly negative (some positive aspects), and the Great Famine is an area of renewed debate following Yong Songlin's recebt book on the topic. The Great Famine plays something of an ideological role, as well, since exaggerating it's impact is a pillar of support for DXP's market reforms. So if you harp on about the Great Famine, Deng and Xi send you their thanks and perhaps $0.50.


Haha, China has Singapore, Cuba has Miami.


There is no generalized "Ukrainians", just as there is no generalized "Americans". Any serious person can see Crimea was overwhelmingly pro-Russian. The Donbass slightly less so, but certainly strongly pro-Russian - they asked to join for years and were rejected by Putin in favour of Minsk. Mariupol less so, but probably more so as the civil war dragged on for almost a decade.

Obviously Kievans don't want to join Russia. There's a big geographical split. An ethnic split. If you can't deal with that, it's because you can't deal with complexity, and it makes it impossible for you to understand how the world works.

Don't feel bad about that, it basically qualifies you to be the next Secretary of State of the US.


Russia has a single failed offensive in Makiivka, something on the scale of what the Ukrainians experience about 3-4 times every single day, and UA telegram goes cummy with glee.

Last week Russia took a flag down on a single building in Kherson and moved it to the new city hall and Lvivz got like 10 posts out of it.

Desperate for wins.


Been over this. America doesn't honour agreements it has signed and ratified, like NAFTA, and it doesn't honour agreements even within a single administration and before any congressional changes, like the JCPOA.

America is a global hegemon run by stupid people and it violates every single agreement it wants to. Just because this one was verbal and wasn't ratified doesn't give you an out when America simply would not, as history has routinely shown, have honoured it anyways.

You're trying to have it both ways, implying that America wouldn't have expanded NATO if it was in writing, but finding excuses or violating NAFTA, JCPOA, WTO, etc etc. And like all 'whataboutisms', this isn't about pointing out hypocrisy and saying "ah hah!", because I don't think you're being hypocritical. I think you're lying by not being honest about the principles that explain these positions you take sans contradictions. That is: 'America is powerful, we get to do what we want, fuck you.' Just be honest, you're a grown ass man.

This post was edited by kusotarre1 on Nov 8 2022 07:38pm

Who said you are supposed to be okay with it? They see it as a security risk, that's why they are responding the way they are.

I don't really care what the pundits say, but might be interesting to see when they started saying those things.

The conflict started after the Yanukovych government was overthrown and Ukraines "revolution of dignity", Russia then annexed crimea to secure their black sea naval base which they had been paying the Ukraine government to use up until that point. EU membership was not a major issue.

sick in za head Kremlin prostitute waked up

Sorry you missed me. You like my PM?

You can send dead people to me in pm, but all know 10x more rus die and are pushed back on all front

Putin wont fill your hole dont dress up he have Natasha sry candy boy

Mmhmm.

Hey does anyone know why the BBC went to Russia to fact check their war dead and basically verified it, but haven't done the same to Ukraine's claims of war dead?

Weird!

sry Peskov penis stuck in your lung, pull it out



This post was edited by Zooj on Nov 8 2022 09:02pm

The sources were RU telegram.



You're literally using whataboutism while accusing me of it. The US has neither the obligation, nor the inclination to halt NATO expansion (even if I think it should be disbanded). And that's what this is about: NATO expansion, not any of the litany of things you want to use to characterize US policy on.