Secretary of State Blinken has expressed concerns about Chinese support for Russia during the recent Munich Security Conference. The US ambassador to the UN followed up with a red-line warning about possible Chinese arms shipments to Russia:
“We welcome the Chinese announcement that they want peace because that’s what we always want to pursue in situations like this. But we also have to be clear that if there are any thoughts and efforts by the Chinese and others to provide lethal support to the Russians in their brutal attack against Ukraine, that that is unacceptable,” Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield told CNN’s Pamela Brown on “State of the Union.”
At the same time as the US issued these warnings, the Chinese foreign minister was visiting Moscow. President Xi is reportedly planning a visit to Russia this spring.
The US has generally ignored red lines from Russia and China, why should we expect that China will care about an American red line now?
China shares a common border with Russia. How would the US even know if weapons from China end up in Russia?
American commentators have repeatedly suggested that the plan is to defeat Russia and then go after China. It is in China’s best interest to make sure that NATO does not win in Ukraine?
NATO has been unable to keep up with Russian ammunition production in the Ukrainian war. China’s industrial economy is several times larger than Russia’s. Is the red line really an admission that Chinese support could totally overwhelm NATO-backed forces in Ukraine?
Is the Ukrainian-Russian war becoming a proxy war between the US and China?
The Munich Conference was a bit of clown show. We had the German foreign minister saying that Putin needs to make a “360 degree” change in direction at the Munich conference. Of course, 360 degrees would mean he ends up where he is now.
The British Prime Minister was using a gambling analog to describe NATO support for Ukraine.
The words from NATO leaders are hardly inspiring confidence.
NATO can’t match Russian ammunition shipments to Ukraine.
“The war in Ukraine is consuming an enormous amount of munitions and depleting allied stockpiles,” Stoltenberg said. “The current rate of Ukraine´s ammunition expenditure is many times higher than our current rate of production. This puts our defense industries under strain.”
The Germans certainly thought so when they invaded Russia in 1941. They found out the superior production of low-tech weapons beats smaller production of high-tech weapons. Similar things are going on the trenches where Ukrainian soldiers are facing Russian artillery.
If China’s supplies weapons to Russia the game is over for NATO in Ukraine.
OK, you go ahead and keep invoking things from a time when clouds halted the entire Air Force. That’ll somehow prove that Russia and China are not, in fact, trash militaries.
The US spends about the same on its military as the next nine countries combined, yet the US and its NATO allies are running out of ammunition. At the same time Russia is using much more ammunition with a tiny fraction of NATO’s military budget. That shows that the western military-industrial complex is corrupt, bloated, and inefficient in the extreme.
Perhaps we need to find out what Russia is doing to be so efficient with their military production instead of being so arrogant and complacent.
The party line from Washington has been that the international community agrees with the NATO proxy war in Ukraine. That is true if only countries that are close US allies are considered to be part of the international community:
It looks like the mainstream media is finally admitting that most of the world does not see agree with the US position. The reality is that most of the world is not interested in supporting NATO sanctions. Russia is not a pariah. China’s approach to the war is hardly extreme in that context. Here are some quotes from a recent article in the New York Times:
But the West never won over as much of the world as it initially seemed. Another 47 countries abstained or missed the vote, including India and China. Many of those “neutral” nations have since provided crucial economic or diplomatic support for Russia.
And even some of the nations that initially agreed to denounce Russia see the war as somebody else’s problem — and have since started moving toward a more neutral position. . .
Instead of cleaving in two, the world has fragmented. A vast middle sees Russia’s invasion as, primarily, a European and American problem. Rather than view it as an existential threat, these countries are largely focused on protecting their own interests amid the economic and geopolitical upheaval caused by the invasion. Greenwald: NYT Finally Admits "The International Community" Does Not Stand With US On Ukraine | ZeroHedge
I am a no on nuclear war for Ukraine, somehow that makes me an outlier but no, better check the polls peeps, I am in the majority now. This gravy train is about over.
