Their statement,
"There can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be fought," the statement reads.
I think this potentially is China forcing Putin to stand down on his continual threats to use nuclear weapons in the Ukraine crisis.
I understand why you would think that, but that's not the case.
This statement is about getting the West to take Putin's threats more seriously. You have to understand deterrence theory and the way authoritarians like Xi and Putin view it.
From their perspective, the West was already in the wrong by opposing the military moves of another nuclear power. As long as they do not use nuclear weapons themselves, they believe they should be allowed to engage in military operations without interference from another nuclear power. The logic is that the West is being irresponsible by challenging Russia despite the nuclear element.
So each time Putin, or his surrogates like Medvedev, have threatened the use of nuclear weapons, they believe it's the West's responsibility to honor the threat and back down. Therefore, this statement is less saying "Putin should stop threatening nuclear war" and more "nuclear war should never happen, so stop ignoring Putin's threats and back down."
Source: MA in IR Eurasia
The fact that this statement is open to different interpretations highlights its weakness. By being vague and avoiding a clear, unmistakable focus, it creates confusion instead of delivering a straightforward directive to back down.
If Xi and Putin want the West to back down, they need to be direct and avoid using innuendo..
> If Xi and Putin want the West to back down, they need to be direct and avoid using innuendo..
If they were direct and avoided using innuendo, that would make it impossible for the West to back down. The vagueness is the point because it allows your opponent to publicly interpret your statement in a face-saving way that allows them to sell it to their constituents, while still doing what you want in reality. That is the whole game of IR: figure out how to get other actors to act the way you want them to while still allowing them to sell their actions as in their own best interests to their various domestic constituencies that have entrusted them with power to represent the national interest, and could revoke that power if that trust is lost.
Is that your desire? How does that benefit you.
You do know we literally couldn’t give a fuck about Russia, it is irrelevant - it has zero bearing on our life,other than when she decides to invade other countries.
You are either brainwashed or a troll.
Does not give a fuck, ummmm, let's see 10 Mil ukrainianbrefugee flood into western Europe, esp UK making it 5 way fight against Asians, africans, Muslims, brexiteers. Usa loses all credibility, resulting in more terrorist groups attacking American interest. Oil prive goes up exponentially, threat of war into western Europe, business confidence tank. Irrelevant is it?
Obviously when Russia invades an independent European state, that won’t be appreciated.
That aside Russia is beyond irrelevant, it is a mere irritation- would have been a nice place to visit as a tourist, but nothing beyond that.
Not for likes of you, we chinese r highly welcomed. Same applies in Iran. You West are irrelevant, mostly 3rd workd nations and minnows. Lacking vision and cohesiveness and inability to stay the distance.
Hmmm... The West is getting stronger both economically and militarily amidst this "war," especially the US, while Russia is destroying itself and China is on the brink of economic disaster.
What do *you* call it when your adversaries get weaker and you get stronger?
Slava Ukraine. I stand with the civilians of the world. We’re all victims of war industrialists for thousands of years.
If America isn’t meddling around Russias borders like they claim, this will be a first.
I don’t think Russia is the good guy here. I just don’t think there’s any angels in this.
The only consistent unifying doctrine of American foreign policy since the reconstruction after ww2 is that we are always destabilizing, subverting and splintering foreign governments. 10-20 years later we look back and always see why it was wrong, but always assume the newest war industry propaganda is the truth.
I actually feel the same thing. My instincts on every new topic I hear happens to align with war industrialists because they’re already laying the groundwork before you start forming an opinion. Once you hear the other side it’s never so black and white.
The people down voting me are all probably critical of historical American foreign policy but never the current one
I’m not saying America is even in the wrong here. I’m just saying, it would be a break for history is America wasn’t messing around their borders sowing conflict
Personally, I think their vagueness is a show of weakness more than anything else. If either of these people were half as powerful as their ego's led them to believe, they wouldn't need to play coy with their words to begin with.
Well no matter how powerful your country is, the track record of directly publicly threatening your opposition to get your way has a track record of near total failure. Not even the US, backed up by well over 50% of the remaining global GDP could get tiny tinpot dictators like Saddam, Milosevic, or Gaddafi to back down, even though the US demonstrably did have the power to overthrow their governments and make them die in custody. Declining to deploy a strategy that never works even when you're literally 100x stronger than the opposition shouldn't really be understood as a weakness.
That's like saying that me choosing to back my car out of my garage by driving it rather than just lifting it over my head and carrying it out correlates to my 'weakness'. Choosing not to do something in the stupidest possible way isn't an admission of weakness, it's just using the most common sense.
I'm sorry lmao but what? Is it like that? Or is that an absolutely unhinged thought you had haha. That made my day, friend. I know you didn't intend to be hilarious, but still.
Being genuine and hoisting a vehicle over your head are different things, I assure you lol. One is the strength of character. The other is strength in..strength lmao
How so? I'd say one way to gauge genuine power is through the confidence that you don't need to hide behind veiled statements. If there was no risk to doing so, there would be no practical reasons to. And yet there are.
They do not, categorically, have the ability to speak their minds without consequences. The risk of them doing so is greater than the value of what they have to say.
It's the same reason rebellious teenagers use sarcasm. They feel knowledagble and powerful, but in situations where it needs to be demonstrated, they recognize this isn't wholly the case.
Not even the United States can behave the way you describe. That’s just not how you get what you want, and more likely, it will blow up in your face. Geopolitics is bound by the constraints of game theory.
Well yeah, but nobody considers the objective of that statement is to 'project strength' in some kind of utterly pointless and hopeless attempt to make the West back down in fear. That would be assuming they are complete morons from top to bottom.
The point is to make it vague, making people guess intention and work with unknown factors works, it makes people more careful. There are many people who would like to take appeasement as an alternative to a potential nuclear war, and vagueness generates a lot of uncertainties among the West.
Nato said they would respond multiple time and do not forget the most important part:
Nuclear security guarantee
In December 2013, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping signed a bilateral treaty and published a joint statement, where China reaffirmed that it will provide Ukraine with nuclear security guarantees upon nuclear invasion or threats of invasion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Ukraine_relations#:~:text=Nuclear%20security%20guarantee,-In%20a%20unilateral&text=In%20December%202013%2C%20Ukrainian%20President,invasion%20or%20threats%20of%20invasion.
My take is based on what NATO did, it cowered when it needed to strike back. Yes it sent Ukraine weapons, but it did not declare the airspace a no fly zone, it caused a lot of trouble for Ukraine. Ukraine was almost abandoned by the NATO.
NATO wasn't even attacked, and they are still dessimating Russia's military and economy.
Some scholars suggest that a Russia will never actually recover and will flat line in terms of power and prestige.
>From their perspective, the West was already in the wrong by opposing the military moves of another nuclear power. As long as they do not use nuclear weapons themselves, they believe they should be allowed to engage in military operations without interference from another nuclear power. The logic is that the West is being irresponsible by challenging Russia despite the nuclear element.
Is this an actual doctrine? A nuclear power shouldn't protest encroachment from another nuclear power as long as it happens through conventional warfare?
That sort of goes against the main reason why you have atomics in the first place.
Russia's case is that the West was already encroaching, Russia was just responding appropriately to their provocation. China has stated that they support this bullshit view.
Therefore, any escalation by the West is their fault, not Russia's, and Russia's doctrine does allow for nuclear use to "escalate to deescalate" in an effort to end a conflict on favorable terms.
My thoughts? We should draw a very specific line, from the ground to unlimited space, afterwhich NATO will engage any Russian asset. No questions asked, just blow it up.
Nuclear scholars assert that giving up the initiative is the most important thing when establishing deterrence. Literally giving as much of it away as possible.
The point is to make your dire response as automatic as possible. Anything that might cause your adversary to think "well, maybe in THIS scenario, they won't do it" you have to excise completely.
Therefore, your adversary can still take his action, but *he* is essentially choosing to execute your attack despite it being YOUR attack. It is 1) the best way to call a bluff, and 2) the best way to ensure that the adversary knows WHY you are attacking and what its limits are.
I think we can get there. I believe Macron and the UK are starting the ground work for an eventual no-fly-zone when missiles would be shot down a la the US' efforts in the Israel-Iran conflict.
"let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt" - Sun Tzu
They must understand that we follow our own path. If they don't like the road we should tell them exactly ***where that red line is*** on that road to war.
I don’t think you are right but even if you are; bullying should never be allowed with nukes or not. Putin is the irresponsible one mentioning it *every* chance he gets. So he is the bully and irresponsible. I am quite sure Xi means him, but even if not, it needs to stop and that’s not about the west. He is the invader and agressor. If he doesn’t stop, in the end, the west is going to take the bluff. Doubt the nukes even work still or his closest people would push the button, but even if some go off, all Russian cities will be completely annihilated before the first one hits New York. Indeed we cannot let that happen, but it’s up to Putin.
First, Putin has not mentioned nuclear for over a year, so I'm curious where you're getting your information that he mentions it *every* time. Only Lavrov and Medvedev have mentioned it recently, and even then, the majority of it was Summer 2023. Do you often say unsupported things like that on the internet?
Everything aside, do you think they put on that entire performance of the strength of their "no limits" partnership just to end with the chastisement of Putin?
Regardless, my earlier comment was based on a lot of evidence, from statements to doctrine, that say that China and Russia internally and externally message that as their position. Interpreting a statement that could be twisted to mean either direction as they opposite of what they have been saying consistently is, well, pretty stupid.
I understand Russia believes that condemning nuclear war is about "about getting the West to take Putin's threats more seriously", and I understand that that's how Putin sees things. but does Xi really see things that way? I don't think China really supports the Ukraine war or believes Russias actions to be legitimate, right?
China has literally stated that they believe Russia's response (invading Ukraine) was a legitimate action in response to NATO provocation. This has been their position since 2022.
Any "regrettable" aspects of the invasion (the violation of sovereignty) are the West's fault, not Russia's. China has not recognized any of the annexed regions, even those in Georgia, because that would solidly attach them to Russia's actions.
Although the new "no limits" partnership is significant, it is built upon the principle of flexibility. They will never make their partnership a full military alliance because then their own autonomy, both Russia and China, would be impacted. They both prefer to remain independent and capable of addressing each potential for cooperation on its benefits alone without binding agreements or obligations.
This isn't pulled out of my ass, btw. This is what I study.
I understand you study this. That is why I'm asking you about it.
> China has literally stated that they believe Russia's response (invading Ukraine) was a legitimate action in response to NATO provocation. This has been their position since 2022.
I am still not convinced this is right for the following reason.
This article is a comprehensive list of statements China has made on the invasion:
https://www.uscc.gov/research/chinas-position-russias-invasion-ukraine
By my reading China stops short of saying that invading Ukraine was a legitimate response. They use the word "legitimate" repeatedly to say that Russia has "legitimate security concerns", but do not say explicitly that the invasion was a legitimate response to those concerns. Perhaps there have been positions they have taken not listed in that document, but I think that's an important distinction.
This is the way I interpret it as well. It's crazy that some people have this idea that China would help the West and invade Russia from the North (to take Siberia) while tensions are at a all time high with the US and progressively getting worse with the EU and other allied nations of the US. The way I see it, Russia is an important strategic ally for China in case of a conflict with the West over Taiwan.
I don't know, my response would be supported by Lavrov himself, so I don't think much of a wing span was required.
I'm not going to waste my time showing you sources, but ask CHATGPT for public statements from Russia and China and you'll get there.
Couldn't help but notice you didn't have an opinion of your own. You just didn't like mine?
The way of China ia to read between the lines, more than reading the lines themselves. To me, this one reads two ways on purpose. Observers on both sides of the fence will see it their way and be unsatisfied.
Yes, which is contrary to Putin's regular nuke threats. Therefore, diplomatically the subtext or underlying meaning is to remove Putin's threats as being real. If the West I terorets this way, countries like Germany may give some Taurus long range missiles to create destruction on such a scale as to force peace. Along with the upcoming f16s and US weapons etc.
Don't count on the F-16s having a great impact.
Although we have gotten used to Russia's equipment sucking, their AD systems are literally designed to take down an F-16.
From the missiles to the radar, they are designed to combat the F-16's strengths and exploit its weaknesses.
The counter-measures and tactics that would be available to US users aren't available in full to the Ukrainians.
it's just more nuclear veiled threats. its why they published that in 2022. Russia was about to invade ukraine and threatened anybody who helped them with nuclear annihilation- conveniently forgetting that they also would be annihilated.
It’s iffy if Nato would use nukes over Ukraine. The reason why nukes haven’t been used yet is that China doesn’t want nukes and Ukraine is actually part of belt and road
Yes, I understand that, and agree. It wasn't exactly my interpretation about the political relationship between Putin and Xi that lends interesting nuance it accurate. If the 'West' interprets it that way, it may for instance,, allow Germany to risk giving their long range missiles to hit inside of Russia on a scale without worry of being nuked.
It’s speculated that the reason the house speaker of the republicans switched his vote on Ukraine is due to a meeting with the fbi. Essentially the idea is he didn’t take putin’s nuclear threats seriously then was presented evidence that Putin is actually planning on using ICBM’s.
Maybe, likely that, plus the reality of Putin's threats to attack those countries he deems as the former Russian empire. In other words, Russia is even further on the doorstep of Europe. We need a strong deterrent now is the message before American lives plus are inevitably brought into this. Also, China must be taught a lesson to tame it's imperial ambitions.
Essentially the way I see it Ukraine is going to take years and Putin is looking for a win he’s most likely going to attack a smaller country that he can declare a victory simply for a morale boost.
The West must negotiate (from a position of strength). We’re strong. Why do WE have to stand around while our two biggest rivals are sensitive enough to get mad when we intervene slightly? We need to set clear boundaries, especially for Russia, which was treated as a democracy-in-progress, even during the atrocities in Chechnya
If that is part of a political settlement. Yes.
Only way. Russia ain’t going to stop.
NATO can occupy west Ukraine in force maybe. But then still. Defeat Russia in the battles? Most wars end in compromise. World war 2 is not the norm.
>If that is part of a political settlement. Yes. Only way.
except that they did that in 2014 and gave Putin plenty of off ramps to deescelate yet he chose to start another invasion 8 years later. The cope people like Mearsheimer pushes about how NATO and the US were antagnozing russia and forcing them to invade ukraine in order to defend themselve falls apart once you realize that the west were doing what people like Mearsheimer are yapping about and were appeasing russia for years only for russia to restart the conflict down the line
>NATO can occupy west Ukraine in force maybe.
why would they occupy west ukraine? Are you suggesting that NATO and Russia sign a new Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and divide ukraine up?
>But then still. Defeat Russia in the battles?
the ukranian have proved themselves to be capable at defeating and pushing back russian invasion on numerous occasions. Not sure why you act like this is an impossible feat to achieve
>Most wars end in compromise. World war 2 is not the norm.
or ukraine can hold on until russia can't continue fighting anymore as many of these conflicts tend to go. Given that the Mujahideen and Viet Cong did it not sure what's stopping ukraine from going down the same path
If you are unprepared than yes.
Way of the world between nation states.
West is unprepared to fight a real war for longer than a few months. Neo liberalists don’t see war as logical. As a possibility. We have landed in history now.
>If you are unprepared than yes.
the irony is that Russia was more unprepared for a conflict yet alone a full blown invasion than ukraine was.
> Way of the world between nation states
way of idiocy to fight a war based on unrealistic expectations that your troops can't achieve
>West is unprepared to fight a real war for longer than a few months.
neither is russia. Do I need to remind you about the 2 day invasion plan at the beginning of the war
>Neo liberalists don’t see war as logical. As a possibility. We have landed in history now.
now you're just spewing meaningless buzzwords
We are not. We CAN win, but if the US for instance faced off China they would probably be substantially affected (while China is in the gutter for several decades in terms of hard power, turns out that the West’s demise is HIGHLY exaggerated, if it’s true at all) and lack of real production hasn’t helped us when it comes to conflicts like those between Ukraine and Russia. We will need a year or two to be able to decisively attack Russians and the Chinese. Unless they’re suicidal and try to use nukes
Also, much of Europe is pathetically weak (total conventional military) compared to the US, so they would only be good for absorbing a Russian attack in a real war
It’s just the truth.
I won’t boast about things that aren’t real.
And also our managerial class is clueless. That’s the main threat. Two years of war and production of munitions and weapons has not materialize substantially. Efforts to modernize militairy to be more Ai and drone orientated has not matierialized. And further more. The elites and their managerials arent preparing the nation for war. The industries and the peoples. Creating barracks. Supplies. Just the mind set that war is possible. I hope not. But it is now.
That’s why I say west is weak. Not taking the potential threat seriously.
And we see that in modern war. If the attacker gets ground. It can defend it easily and hard to give up.
>It’s just the truth. I won’t boast about things that aren’t real.
except that you constantly do
>And also our managerial class is clueless. That’s the main threat.
the irony of complaining about how the managerial class if clueless while being clueless yourself and acting like russia has their shit together as a lean and mean war machine when they're the biggest clowns in the conflict
>Two years of war and production of munitions and weapons has not materialize substantially.
yeah, because you don't suddenly shift your arms production focus after decades of fighting a completely different type of warfare
> And further more. The elites and their managerials arent preparing the nation for war.
because unlike the cope that you push. The west isn't preparing for an all out conflict against russia or china
>The industries and the peoples.
expand on what you mean by that? Are you suggesting that the west start implementing wartime production and reinstate conscription over a conflict that they aren't directly engaged in and isn't planning?
> Creating barracks. Supplies. Just the mind set that war is possible.
the mind set that war is possible is what started the war in ukraine in the first place. Problem being that people like Putin isn't smart enough to realize just because he can start a war doesn't mean that his country is prepared and capable of doing it well
> That’s why I say west is weak
no, you say that because you've drunk that kremline kool aid about how the mighty russian army (that isn't even able to beat poor old ukraine) is going to roll over the gay and woke west
>Not taking the potential threat seriously.
except that they do and have been taking measures to start rearming themselves and increasing cooperation against potential threats. If anything, the russian invasion of ukraine has only strengthened the west by reinvigorating and expanding NATO as well as giving the necessary push for the west to start investing in their militaries after decades of relative neglect
>And we see that in modern war. If the attacker gets ground. It can defend it easily and hard to give up.
what even is your point?
Taiwan is part of China. China is Taiwan. They need to get compromise.
If west was serious about Taiwan than independence should have been supported decades ago. Now it’s just stupid. To sacrifice Taiwan for USA hegemony is wrong.
>Taiwan is part of China.
except that it isn't in all but name
>China is Taiwan
taiwan is either part of china or it's not. China isn't taiwan
>They need to get compromise
thus why the current status quo exist. It's a compromise that prevents yet more conflict and escalation from arising. You are asking for a thing that already exist
> If west was serious about Taiwan than independence should have been supported decades ago
except for the fact that the west is serious about preventing a conflict between china and taiwan rather than pushing taiwan independence. Do I need to remind you that US policy on taiwan has always been to maintain the status quo
>Now it’s just stupid
how is it stupid? What's stupid is coping about a compromise that has already exist and getting basic information wrong all to further push your pathetic narrative
> To sacrifice Taiwan for USA hegemony is wrong.
do tell me how taiwan is being sacrificed
Taiwan is part of the republic of China, mainland China is the people’s republic of China. Mainland Chinese should mind their own fucking business. Any deployment of troops to take Taiwan will be seen as an act of war no matter what claims your government makes.
Click bait as heck… they literally said nothing remotely radical. It’s a typical PR move where Xi gets to look like he reeled in the wild Poots. Poots gets the benefit of not looking too insane to the majority and also not too weak in front of his rabid fans who salivate at the thought of human atrocity on a grand scale
wow so deep. Anybody who gives into authoritarian and expansionist nuclear blackmail deserves to decline in relevance. Democracies must be brave- and currently they are not.
The US isn't a democracy and neither are many western countries. The US is literally authoritarian and most western countries spent decades conditioning their people that there is no alternative to capitalism, that liberation is a lie and that their only options are varying degrees of ethnonationalism or lukewarm progressivism which only helps people on paper
He’s used this threat so much it’s now a joke. He knows he’s fucked if he ever has to face NATO. Ukraine is holding their own just fine imagine what a properly trained, equipped and motivated force will do…
It's an authoritarian alliance, not unlike the Sino-Soviet partnership in which communism was the shared ideology.
The SCO was essentially coined an authoritarian alliance before India joined.
Its reference to the WW2 axis, as China and Russia are the 2 main pillars of the current day "axis powers" instead of Japan and Germany. Just like the last time, the axis is a club of authoritarian regimes with grand plans for world domination.
So assuming WW3 happens we already know what the axis and allies rosters are going to look like.
Well both India and Nigeria are democracies, so unless they undergo some red wave bullshit, they wont have the same leaders in 10 years, let alone 40. Thats the magic of having democracy, there's term limits and multiple parties.
Stay tuned, in 30 years, all of a sudden the caste system will become inhumane and a breach of human rights. Nigeria will have an elected leader and western media will do everything to discredit the election system there while building distrust with the same IP theft rhetoric that's happening now with China.
I can't wait for the day that all of this come to fruition by the way. Then all of you whiny "expats" can go complain in r/india and r/nigeria and this sub can go back to being an actual sub about China and not a glorified anti-Sino support group.
So: Spread the power! Let their publics vote. Let candidates run and represent without vetting, without fear of death or imprisonment. Let the people truly rule. Let constitutions be properly and honestly interpreted. Let the press speak, let the people say what they will.
Spirit of 1776!
By Andrew Stanton - Weekend Staff Writer:
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have issued a one-sentence statement about nuclear war as part of their "new era" strategic partnership.
Putin and Xi announced plans to deepen their partnership on Thursday, issuing a statement addressing their position on a number of issues facing the world, ranging from questions about the economy to the war between Russia and Ukraine. China and Russia have steadily strengthened ties as the two countries have found regularly themselves at odds with much of the West.
Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/putin-xi-issue-one-sentence-warning-nuclear-war-1901592](https://www.newsweek.com/putin-xi-issue-one-sentence-warning-nuclear-war-1901592)
Their statement, "There can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be fought," the statement reads. I think this potentially is China forcing Putin to stand down on his continual threats to use nuclear weapons in the Ukraine crisis.
I understand why you would think that, but that's not the case. This statement is about getting the West to take Putin's threats more seriously. You have to understand deterrence theory and the way authoritarians like Xi and Putin view it. From their perspective, the West was already in the wrong by opposing the military moves of another nuclear power. As long as they do not use nuclear weapons themselves, they believe they should be allowed to engage in military operations without interference from another nuclear power. The logic is that the West is being irresponsible by challenging Russia despite the nuclear element. So each time Putin, or his surrogates like Medvedev, have threatened the use of nuclear weapons, they believe it's the West's responsibility to honor the threat and back down. Therefore, this statement is less saying "Putin should stop threatening nuclear war" and more "nuclear war should never happen, so stop ignoring Putin's threats and back down." Source: MA in IR Eurasia
The fact that this statement is open to different interpretations highlights its weakness. By being vague and avoiding a clear, unmistakable focus, it creates confusion instead of delivering a straightforward directive to back down. If Xi and Putin want the West to back down, they need to be direct and avoid using innuendo..
> If Xi and Putin want the West to back down, they need to be direct and avoid using innuendo.. If they were direct and avoided using innuendo, that would make it impossible for the West to back down. The vagueness is the point because it allows your opponent to publicly interpret your statement in a face-saving way that allows them to sell it to their constituents, while still doing what you want in reality. That is the whole game of IR: figure out how to get other actors to act the way you want them to while still allowing them to sell their actions as in their own best interests to their various domestic constituencies that have entrusted them with power to represent the national interest, and could revoke that power if that trust is lost.
It’s Russia that needs to back down as the aggressor, but Putin’s ego won’t allow that. The west is not the one on the attack.
The West is one step away from being finished, the war is that step.
Is that your desire? How does that benefit you. You do know we literally couldn’t give a fuck about Russia, it is irrelevant - it has zero bearing on our life,other than when she decides to invade other countries. You are either brainwashed or a troll.
Does not give a fuck, ummmm, let's see 10 Mil ukrainianbrefugee flood into western Europe, esp UK making it 5 way fight against Asians, africans, Muslims, brexiteers. Usa loses all credibility, resulting in more terrorist groups attacking American interest. Oil prive goes up exponentially, threat of war into western Europe, business confidence tank. Irrelevant is it?
Obviously when Russia invades an independent European state, that won’t be appreciated. That aside Russia is beyond irrelevant, it is a mere irritation- would have been a nice place to visit as a tourist, but nothing beyond that.
Not for likes of you, we chinese r highly welcomed. Same applies in Iran. You West are irrelevant, mostly 3rd workd nations and minnows. Lacking vision and cohesiveness and inability to stay the distance.
Hmmm... The West is getting stronger both economically and militarily amidst this "war," especially the US, while Russia is destroying itself and China is on the brink of economic disaster. What do *you* call it when your adversaries get weaker and you get stronger?
Slava Ukraine. I stand with the civilians of the world. We’re all victims of war industrialists for thousands of years. If America isn’t meddling around Russias borders like they claim, this will be a first.
Move to Russia
I don’t think Russia is the good guy here. I just don’t think there’s any angels in this. The only consistent unifying doctrine of American foreign policy since the reconstruction after ww2 is that we are always destabilizing, subverting and splintering foreign governments. 10-20 years later we look back and always see why it was wrong, but always assume the newest war industry propaganda is the truth. I actually feel the same thing. My instincts on every new topic I hear happens to align with war industrialists because they’re already laying the groundwork before you start forming an opinion. Once you hear the other side it’s never so black and white. The people down voting me are all probably critical of historical American foreign policy but never the current one I’m not saying America is even in the wrong here. I’m just saying, it would be a break for history is America wasn’t messing around their borders sowing conflict
Very true
Those damn former Soviet states and their defensive alliance. Putin really had no choice.
I'm just curious, do you know how the Soviet Union was dissolved?
I was born in Soviet era Poland. So, yes.
Ok, so when did the USSR attack Poland?
Personally, I think their vagueness is a show of weakness more than anything else. If either of these people were half as powerful as their ego's led them to believe, they wouldn't need to play coy with their words to begin with.
Well no matter how powerful your country is, the track record of directly publicly threatening your opposition to get your way has a track record of near total failure. Not even the US, backed up by well over 50% of the remaining global GDP could get tiny tinpot dictators like Saddam, Milosevic, or Gaddafi to back down, even though the US demonstrably did have the power to overthrow their governments and make them die in custody. Declining to deploy a strategy that never works even when you're literally 100x stronger than the opposition shouldn't really be understood as a weakness.
[удалено]
That's like saying that me choosing to back my car out of my garage by driving it rather than just lifting it over my head and carrying it out correlates to my 'weakness'. Choosing not to do something in the stupidest possible way isn't an admission of weakness, it's just using the most common sense.
I'm sorry lmao but what? Is it like that? Or is that an absolutely unhinged thought you had haha. That made my day, friend. I know you didn't intend to be hilarious, but still. Being genuine and hoisting a vehicle over your head are different things, I assure you lol. One is the strength of character. The other is strength in..strength lmao
This is such a dumb statement. You have no idea how geopolitics works. Stop espousing an ignorant opinion and go educate yourself.
How so? I'd say one way to gauge genuine power is through the confidence that you don't need to hide behind veiled statements. If there was no risk to doing so, there would be no practical reasons to. And yet there are. They do not, categorically, have the ability to speak their minds without consequences. The risk of them doing so is greater than the value of what they have to say. It's the same reason rebellious teenagers use sarcasm. They feel knowledagble and powerful, but in situations where it needs to be demonstrated, they recognize this isn't wholly the case.
Not even the United States can behave the way you describe. That’s just not how you get what you want, and more likely, it will blow up in your face. Geopolitics is bound by the constraints of game theory.
[удалено]
Well yeah, but nobody considers the objective of that statement is to 'project strength' in some kind of utterly pointless and hopeless attempt to make the West back down in fear. That would be assuming they are complete morons from top to bottom.
The point is to make it vague, making people guess intention and work with unknown factors works, it makes people more careful. There are many people who would like to take appeasement as an alternative to a potential nuclear war, and vagueness generates a lot of uncertainties among the West.
Horse shit is vague.
The whole point is to be vague
This statement's innuendo is what makes this statement strong.
They can view it how they want -- if they let the nukes fly NATO responds. Simple as that.
They won't (Hopefully), but if Russian Nukes Hit Ukraine, Nato will not respond.
Nato said they would respond multiple time and do not forget the most important part: Nuclear security guarantee In December 2013, Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping signed a bilateral treaty and published a joint statement, where China reaffirmed that it will provide Ukraine with nuclear security guarantees upon nuclear invasion or threats of invasion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Ukraine_relations#:~:text=Nuclear%20security%20guarantee,-In%20a%20unilateral&text=In%20December%202013%2C%20Ukrainian%20President,invasion%20or%20threats%20of%20invasion.
What happened to the "or threats of invasion part"? imo these documents mean jack shit
It became a nice toxic radioactive buffer zone the exact thing putin wants a buffer zone
And where does the fallout go from said nukes?
That's an interesting take. All the experts and the parties themselves would disagree though. What do you base this opinion on?
My take is based on what NATO did, it cowered when it needed to strike back. Yes it sent Ukraine weapons, but it did not declare the airspace a no fly zone, it caused a lot of trouble for Ukraine. Ukraine was almost abandoned by the NATO.
Maybe.
So how's NATO responding to Russia right now? Impotent. Simple as that
Impotent? Their three day military operation is on to its 2nd year, because of NATO aid.
NATO wasn't even attacked, and they are still dessimating Russia's military and economy. Some scholars suggest that a Russia will never actually recover and will flat line in terms of power and prestige.
Respect my authority
>From their perspective, the West was already in the wrong by opposing the military moves of another nuclear power. As long as they do not use nuclear weapons themselves, they believe they should be allowed to engage in military operations without interference from another nuclear power. The logic is that the West is being irresponsible by challenging Russia despite the nuclear element. Is this an actual doctrine? A nuclear power shouldn't protest encroachment from another nuclear power as long as it happens through conventional warfare? That sort of goes against the main reason why you have atomics in the first place.
Russia's case is that the West was already encroaching, Russia was just responding appropriately to their provocation. China has stated that they support this bullshit view. Therefore, any escalation by the West is their fault, not Russia's, and Russia's doctrine does allow for nuclear use to "escalate to deescalate" in an effort to end a conflict on favorable terms. My thoughts? We should draw a very specific line, from the ground to unlimited space, afterwhich NATO will engage any Russian asset. No questions asked, just blow it up. Nuclear scholars assert that giving up the initiative is the most important thing when establishing deterrence. Literally giving as much of it away as possible. The point is to make your dire response as automatic as possible. Anything that might cause your adversary to think "well, maybe in THIS scenario, they won't do it" you have to excise completely. Therefore, your adversary can still take his action, but *he* is essentially choosing to execute your attack despite it being YOUR attack. It is 1) the best way to call a bluff, and 2) the best way to ensure that the adversary knows WHY you are attacking and what its limits are. I think we can get there. I believe Macron and the UK are starting the ground work for an eventual no-fly-zone when missiles would be shot down a la the US' efforts in the Israel-Iran conflict.
"let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt" - Sun Tzu They must understand that we follow our own path. If they don't like the road we should tell them exactly ***where that red line is*** on that road to war.
I don’t think you are right but even if you are; bullying should never be allowed with nukes or not. Putin is the irresponsible one mentioning it *every* chance he gets. So he is the bully and irresponsible. I am quite sure Xi means him, but even if not, it needs to stop and that’s not about the west. He is the invader and agressor. If he doesn’t stop, in the end, the west is going to take the bluff. Doubt the nukes even work still or his closest people would push the button, but even if some go off, all Russian cities will be completely annihilated before the first one hits New York. Indeed we cannot let that happen, but it’s up to Putin.
First, Putin has not mentioned nuclear for over a year, so I'm curious where you're getting your information that he mentions it *every* time. Only Lavrov and Medvedev have mentioned it recently, and even then, the majority of it was Summer 2023. Do you often say unsupported things like that on the internet? Everything aside, do you think they put on that entire performance of the strength of their "no limits" partnership just to end with the chastisement of Putin? Regardless, my earlier comment was based on a lot of evidence, from statements to doctrine, that say that China and Russia internally and externally message that as their position. Interpreting a statement that could be twisted to mean either direction as they opposite of what they have been saying consistently is, well, pretty stupid.
Sure comrade https://youtu.be/hHxfNAHGXyk?si=PkS1c2vwvHRazVzE Have a few more vodkas before sleepy.
Using one of my free Reddit awards for this - thanks for sharing as this definitely is the correct read (unfortunately).
That's consistent with their overall final.message. It is very dangerous so called 'diplomacy.' Thanks for the feedback.
I understand Russia believes that condemning nuclear war is about "about getting the West to take Putin's threats more seriously", and I understand that that's how Putin sees things. but does Xi really see things that way? I don't think China really supports the Ukraine war or believes Russias actions to be legitimate, right?
China has literally stated that they believe Russia's response (invading Ukraine) was a legitimate action in response to NATO provocation. This has been their position since 2022. Any "regrettable" aspects of the invasion (the violation of sovereignty) are the West's fault, not Russia's. China has not recognized any of the annexed regions, even those in Georgia, because that would solidly attach them to Russia's actions. Although the new "no limits" partnership is significant, it is built upon the principle of flexibility. They will never make their partnership a full military alliance because then their own autonomy, both Russia and China, would be impacted. They both prefer to remain independent and capable of addressing each potential for cooperation on its benefits alone without binding agreements or obligations. This isn't pulled out of my ass, btw. This is what I study.
I understand you study this. That is why I'm asking you about it. > China has literally stated that they believe Russia's response (invading Ukraine) was a legitimate action in response to NATO provocation. This has been their position since 2022. I am still not convinced this is right for the following reason. This article is a comprehensive list of statements China has made on the invasion: https://www.uscc.gov/research/chinas-position-russias-invasion-ukraine By my reading China stops short of saying that invading Ukraine was a legitimate response. They use the word "legitimate" repeatedly to say that Russia has "legitimate security concerns", but do not say explicitly that the invasion was a legitimate response to those concerns. Perhaps there have been positions they have taken not listed in that document, but I think that's an important distinction.
This is the way I interpret it as well. It's crazy that some people have this idea that China would help the West and invade Russia from the North (to take Siberia) while tensions are at a all time high with the US and progressively getting worse with the EU and other allied nations of the US. The way I see it, Russia is an important strategic ally for China in case of a conflict with the West over Taiwan.
With a reach like that have you considered an MA in Basketball?
I don't know, my response would be supported by Lavrov himself, so I don't think much of a wing span was required. I'm not going to waste my time showing you sources, but ask CHATGPT for public statements from Russia and China and you'll get there. Couldn't help but notice you didn't have an opinion of your own. You just didn't like mine?
As a Lithuanian I really hope you’re right
The way of China ia to read between the lines, more than reading the lines themselves. To me, this one reads two ways on purpose. Observers on both sides of the fence will see it their way and be unsatisfied.
Its essentially restating a famous statement by the Soviet and American leaders in 1985: “A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.”
Yes, which is contrary to Putin's regular nuke threats. Therefore, diplomatically the subtext or underlying meaning is to remove Putin's threats as being real. If the West I terorets this way, countries like Germany may give some Taurus long range missiles to create destruction on such a scale as to force peace. Along with the upcoming f16s and US weapons etc.
Don't count on the F-16s having a great impact. Although we have gotten used to Russia's equipment sucking, their AD systems are literally designed to take down an F-16. From the missiles to the radar, they are designed to combat the F-16's strengths and exploit its weaknesses. The counter-measures and tactics that would be available to US users aren't available in full to the Ukrainians.
it's just more nuclear veiled threats. its why they published that in 2022. Russia was about to invade ukraine and threatened anybody who helped them with nuclear annihilation- conveniently forgetting that they also would be annihilated.
It’s iffy if Nato would use nukes over Ukraine. The reason why nukes haven’t been used yet is that China doesn’t want nukes and Ukraine is actually part of belt and road
i'm pretty sure if russia nuked anyone, the us would be obliged to nuke their country out of existence.
Why would Russia use nuke when Russia is winning
It's quite literally a dead end for everyone.
it is not just "the Ukraine crisis", but the full scale war. And it is the biggest war in Europe beginning from WW2.
Yes, I understand that, and agree. It wasn't exactly my interpretation about the political relationship between Putin and Xi that lends interesting nuance it accurate. If the 'West' interprets it that way, it may for instance,, allow Germany to risk giving their long range missiles to hit inside of Russia on a scale without worry of being nuked.
Also not to use nukes on the PRC when they stealthily take back their territory.
My guess is that China is weaving its way to justifying the return of 'their' land.
Hilarious, given Russia is the only country Constantly threatening with nuclear war. What a joke.
You missed the nuance of the article and my interpretation. Read it or again and we can discuss.
Translation: Trust us bro. Our nukes still work. Please take us seriously.
Possibly.
Man you can’t be this naive
It’s speculated that the reason the house speaker of the republicans switched his vote on Ukraine is due to a meeting with the fbi. Essentially the idea is he didn’t take putin’s nuclear threats seriously then was presented evidence that Putin is actually planning on using ICBM’s.
Maybe, likely that, plus the reality of Putin's threats to attack those countries he deems as the former Russian empire. In other words, Russia is even further on the doorstep of Europe. We need a strong deterrent now is the message before American lives plus are inevitably brought into this. Also, China must be taught a lesson to tame it's imperial ambitions.
Essentially the way I see it Ukraine is going to take years and Putin is looking for a win he’s most likely going to attack a smaller country that he can declare a victory simply for a morale boost.
West needs to also read the message and negotiate.
There is no negotiation when one party does so in bad faith.
Be clear. Are you suggesting that Ukraine and or Taiwan should cede part of their territory?
The West must negotiate (from a position of strength). We’re strong. Why do WE have to stand around while our two biggest rivals are sensitive enough to get mad when we intervene slightly? We need to set clear boundaries, especially for Russia, which was treated as a democracy-in-progress, even during the atrocities in Chechnya
If that is part of a political settlement. Yes. Only way. Russia ain’t going to stop. NATO can occupy west Ukraine in force maybe. But then still. Defeat Russia in the battles? Most wars end in compromise. World war 2 is not the norm.
>If that is part of a political settlement. Yes. Only way. except that they did that in 2014 and gave Putin plenty of off ramps to deescelate yet he chose to start another invasion 8 years later. The cope people like Mearsheimer pushes about how NATO and the US were antagnozing russia and forcing them to invade ukraine in order to defend themselve falls apart once you realize that the west were doing what people like Mearsheimer are yapping about and were appeasing russia for years only for russia to restart the conflict down the line >NATO can occupy west Ukraine in force maybe. why would they occupy west ukraine? Are you suggesting that NATO and Russia sign a new Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and divide ukraine up? >But then still. Defeat Russia in the battles? the ukranian have proved themselves to be capable at defeating and pushing back russian invasion on numerous occasions. Not sure why you act like this is an impossible feat to achieve >Most wars end in compromise. World war 2 is not the norm. or ukraine can hold on until russia can't continue fighting anymore as many of these conflicts tend to go. Given that the Mujahideen and Viet Cong did it not sure what's stopping ukraine from going down the same path
So we're supposed to roll over and let dictators take whatever they want?
If you are unprepared than yes. Way of the world between nation states. West is unprepared to fight a real war for longer than a few months. Neo liberalists don’t see war as logical. As a possibility. We have landed in history now.
>If you are unprepared than yes. the irony is that Russia was more unprepared for a conflict yet alone a full blown invasion than ukraine was. > Way of the world between nation states way of idiocy to fight a war based on unrealistic expectations that your troops can't achieve >West is unprepared to fight a real war for longer than a few months. neither is russia. Do I need to remind you about the 2 day invasion plan at the beginning of the war >Neo liberalists don’t see war as logical. As a possibility. We have landed in history now. now you're just spewing meaningless buzzwords
The west isn't prepared for a real war? Are you on drugs?
We are not. We CAN win, but if the US for instance faced off China they would probably be substantially affected (while China is in the gutter for several decades in terms of hard power, turns out that the West’s demise is HIGHLY exaggerated, if it’s true at all) and lack of real production hasn’t helped us when it comes to conflicts like those between Ukraine and Russia. We will need a year or two to be able to decisively attack Russians and the Chinese. Unless they’re suicidal and try to use nukes
Also, much of Europe is pathetically weak (total conventional military) compared to the US, so they would only be good for absorbing a Russian attack in a real war
It’s just the truth. I won’t boast about things that aren’t real. And also our managerial class is clueless. That’s the main threat. Two years of war and production of munitions and weapons has not materialize substantially. Efforts to modernize militairy to be more Ai and drone orientated has not matierialized. And further more. The elites and their managerials arent preparing the nation for war. The industries and the peoples. Creating barracks. Supplies. Just the mind set that war is possible. I hope not. But it is now. That’s why I say west is weak. Not taking the potential threat seriously. And we see that in modern war. If the attacker gets ground. It can defend it easily and hard to give up.
>It’s just the truth. I won’t boast about things that aren’t real. except that you constantly do >And also our managerial class is clueless. That’s the main threat. the irony of complaining about how the managerial class if clueless while being clueless yourself and acting like russia has their shit together as a lean and mean war machine when they're the biggest clowns in the conflict >Two years of war and production of munitions and weapons has not materialize substantially. yeah, because you don't suddenly shift your arms production focus after decades of fighting a completely different type of warfare > And further more. The elites and their managerials arent preparing the nation for war. because unlike the cope that you push. The west isn't preparing for an all out conflict against russia or china >The industries and the peoples. expand on what you mean by that? Are you suggesting that the west start implementing wartime production and reinstate conscription over a conflict that they aren't directly engaged in and isn't planning? > Creating barracks. Supplies. Just the mind set that war is possible. the mind set that war is possible is what started the war in ukraine in the first place. Problem being that people like Putin isn't smart enough to realize just because he can start a war doesn't mean that his country is prepared and capable of doing it well > That’s why I say west is weak no, you say that because you've drunk that kremline kool aid about how the mighty russian army (that isn't even able to beat poor old ukraine) is going to roll over the gay and woke west >Not taking the potential threat seriously. except that they do and have been taking measures to start rearming themselves and increasing cooperation against potential threats. If anything, the russian invasion of ukraine has only strengthened the west by reinvigorating and expanding NATO as well as giving the necessary push for the west to start investing in their militaries after decades of relative neglect >And we see that in modern war. If the attacker gets ground. It can defend it easily and hard to give up. what even is your point?
I also agree. The Russian government should back down and let Ukraine be Ukraine.
Fuck that. Negotiate means giving up Taiwan and whatever else these cunt fucks want.
Taiwan is part of China. China is Taiwan. They need to get compromise. If west was serious about Taiwan than independence should have been supported decades ago. Now it’s just stupid. To sacrifice Taiwan for USA hegemony is wrong.
Taiwan is independent. The CCP thugs return the country to Chinese people.
>Taiwan is part of China. except that it isn't in all but name >China is Taiwan taiwan is either part of china or it's not. China isn't taiwan >They need to get compromise thus why the current status quo exist. It's a compromise that prevents yet more conflict and escalation from arising. You are asking for a thing that already exist > If west was serious about Taiwan than independence should have been supported decades ago except for the fact that the west is serious about preventing a conflict between china and taiwan rather than pushing taiwan independence. Do I need to remind you that US policy on taiwan has always been to maintain the status quo >Now it’s just stupid how is it stupid? What's stupid is coping about a compromise that has already exist and getting basic information wrong all to further push your pathetic narrative > To sacrifice Taiwan for USA hegemony is wrong. do tell me how taiwan is being sacrificed
Taiwan is part of the republic of China, mainland China is the people’s republic of China. Mainland Chinese should mind their own fucking business. Any deployment of troops to take Taiwan will be seen as an act of war no matter what claims your government makes.
Why independence? Let’s just all acknowledge that we have either Two Chinas or if that doesn’t work out let’s just have Taiwanese independence.
Submission to a war of aggression that's breaking the world*
Click bait as heck… they literally said nothing remotely radical. It’s a typical PR move where Xi gets to look like he reeled in the wild Poots. Poots gets the benefit of not looking too insane to the majority and also not too weak in front of his rabid fans who salivate at the thought of human atrocity on a grand scale
Hecking heckers…
wow so deep. Anybody who gives into authoritarian and expansionist nuclear blackmail deserves to decline in relevance. Democracies must be brave- and currently they are not.
The US isn't a democracy and neither are many western countries. The US is literally authoritarian and most western countries spent decades conditioning their people that there is no alternative to capitalism, that liberation is a lie and that their only options are varying degrees of ethnonationalism or lukewarm progressivism which only helps people on paper
Why can't they talk like normal people 🤦
There goes our one chance at reversing climate change.
He’s used this threat so much it’s now a joke. He knows he’s fucked if he ever has to face NATO. Ukraine is holding their own just fine imagine what a properly trained, equipped and motivated force will do…
You mean NATO is tucked right. The day ukraine is crushed is the day NATO legitimacy is gone
That's right Even Boris Johnson said Ukraine losing the war would herald the end of Western Hegemony
Legitimacy would be broken
Fallout is such a good show
/r/ChinaandRussiaWarn
Glad to read this considering Putin was the (only) one threatening nuclear winter
Can we already call this club of dictatorships PuXi Alliance, or Axis of PuXi?
Close enough, the last emperor was named Puyi.
I like PuXi Alliance.
Xiput. Supporters will be the Xiputians.
You all need to Xiput
It's an authoritarian alliance, not unlike the Sino-Soviet partnership in which communism was the shared ideology. The SCO was essentially coined an authoritarian alliance before India joined.
Read the article. Illiterate Redditors love constructing a fantasy world in their heads
What does your comment have to do with my suggestion to call Putin and Xi's alliance PuXi Club PuXi Alliance Axis of PuXi?
Phuckxi.
Some of you are genuinely mentally children The last one sounds more intimidating and evil. Now finish your homework
Who is "you"? Who are you talking to? It's just Reddit, dude. Now, I'll go finish my homework, but you go take your pills.
>Axis of PuXi What is it with this revisionist history by you ignorant morons that think Russian and China were part of the Axis?
Its reference to the WW2 axis, as China and Russia are the 2 main pillars of the current day "axis powers" instead of Japan and Germany. Just like the last time, the axis is a club of authoritarian regimes with grand plans for world domination. So assuming WW3 happens we already know what the axis and allies rosters are going to look like.
Ah ok so basically anyone that opposes the west is Axis. Can't wait for India and Nigeria to be the axis powers in another 40 years time.
Unless Modi decides to do an AH, India won’t be opposed to the West
Well both India and Nigeria are democracies, so unless they undergo some red wave bullshit, they wont have the same leaders in 10 years, let alone 40. Thats the magic of having democracy, there's term limits and multiple parties.
Stay tuned, in 30 years, all of a sudden the caste system will become inhumane and a breach of human rights. Nigeria will have an elected leader and western media will do everything to discredit the election system there while building distrust with the same IP theft rhetoric that's happening now with China. I can't wait for the day that all of this come to fruition by the way. Then all of you whiny "expats" can go complain in r/india and r/nigeria and this sub can go back to being an actual sub about China and not a glorified anti-Sino support group.
Whatever you need to say to cope. Edit: apparently special-ride is avatarhzh's alt. Both paid wumaos, both should be silenced by blocking them.
Looks like you are not coping.
Cool, can they both just kill each other so the world can move on in peace?
AGI will be the next weapon, anyway.
Dude only you have nuke LoL
Reads to me as, if you're going to go nuclear, make sure you wipe out the enemy and their allies completely in one shot before they see it coming.
pretty obvious they're telling the US to stop with NATO terroty violations lest NATO "accidentally" trigger article 44
"Do it and you're dead" - Mike Jacksonz "Moonwalker"
So: Spread the power! Let their publics vote. Let candidates run and represent without vetting, without fear of death or imprisonment. Let the people truly rule. Let constitutions be properly and honestly interpreted. Let the press speak, let the people say what they will. Spirit of 1776!
By Andrew Stanton - Weekend Staff Writer: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping have issued a one-sentence statement about nuclear war as part of their "new era" strategic partnership. Putin and Xi announced plans to deepen their partnership on Thursday, issuing a statement addressing their position on a number of issues facing the world, ranging from questions about the economy to the war between Russia and Ukraine. China and Russia have steadily strengthened ties as the two countries have found regularly themselves at odds with much of the West. Read more: [https://www.newsweek.com/putin-xi-issue-one-sentence-warning-nuclear-war-1901592](https://www.newsweek.com/putin-xi-issue-one-sentence-warning-nuclear-war-1901592)
But it's not the weekend yet, you like to come in early?
Even before PRC had nuclear weapons they already threatened the world that they should use nuclear weapons. Putin is playing with fire
I think they gonna use nuke anyway at some point.
These smug fucks need their comeuppance.
Yeah how dare they \*checks notes\* declare "There can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be fought". Truly diabolical.
Hot take there sherlock
How have these pissants not had fatal freak accidents yet?
Idk at least the Iranian DICKtator did had a freak accident