[dirtyid]

The opposite. PRC subscribes to UN framework - it doesn't matter what some Russians or Taiwanese think, it's about norms within the framework. PRC and majority of UN views TW as part of China, it's a domestic / sovereignty issue. Whereas Ukraine is recognized as sovereign at UN, including by PRC, who has not formally recognized RU annexation of Crimea. RU further annexation of Ukraine undermines sovereignty of Ukraine which in PRC view normalizes foreign involvement in domestic affairs, i.e. US supporting TW in PRC/TW civil war.

RU actions are against PRC interests in terms of international norms. Also PRC has not spelled out alignment on RU/UKR issue in terms of sovereignty, while Russian did endorse PRC's sovereignty position on TW, PRC statement of the meeting side stepped RU position on UKR. PRC position has been RU security interests should be respected, preferably via political settlement (Minsk) that doesn't involve violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The parallel is PRC security interest in taking TW (again a domestic issue) should be respected, without outsiders like US violating Chinese sovereignty.

It's going to be interesting to see how PRC attempts to square the circle now that Putin has invaded and stated UKR has no sovereignty.

[syki]

I believe your analysis is wrong and that there is no way Russia would do what it is doing without approval from China. China will do nothing to punish Russia. They might make some meaningless gestures but nothing meaningful.

[dirtyid]

Putin has been looking to secure western border since always. Why does RU need PRC approval? RU does what's in RU interests, the fact that RU had courtesy to wait until after Olympics is about as much leverage PRC has in the situation. And why does PRC need to punish RU or do anything meaningful if doing nothing is likely more optimal for PRC. The geopolitical calculus is all over the place, no reason to be hasty.

[syki]

RU actions are against PRC interests in terms of international norms.

They are not and I don’t believe Russia would do what it is doing in Ukraine without Chinese approval. The timing of the recent agreement between Russia and China is pretty much proof that Russia has China’s blessing.

Since 1960 China has had military incursions against Vietnam, Soviet Union, and India. It has blatantly violated norms regarding the laws of the seas and used pseudo naval vessels to blatantly overfish in the territory of other countries. It has told VW that if it wants to sell cars in China then VW must stop doing business with a Lithuanian company. Your views on the subject of China and international norms is weird to me and not supported by history.

I will not convince you of anything and likewise I doubt you’ll be able to convince me of anything. I stand by my assertion that China approves Russia’s actions.

[dirtyid]

They are, why else would PRC stress importance of UK sovereignty in official statements. Because PRC cares about norms not noninterference if it decides to move on TW. Also, why approval and not acquiescence? Russia is not PRC puppet, there aren't comparable political arrangements unlike US and her satraps for PRC to pressure RU.

>Since 1960 China

You basically listed a bunch of events that are consistent with what PRC considers to be domestic issues since the 1960s, i.e. territorial disputes, supporting secessionist forces in TW. Vietnam land war was over security (like Korea), PRC retreated after operations, and ideally PRC would hope RU does as well, hence no recognition of Crimea annexation. CCP does not endorse private companies fish in other countries EEZs. Nor is PRC in violation of UNCLOS norms at UN. Nor do secondary sanctions blocking PRC market which PRC adopted from US toolkit a violation of German sovereignty. Regardless, the point is the spectrum is more than binary approval / disapproval.

[syki]

Hardly surprising: https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/china/china-ukraine-russia-re...

[syki]

Still think you are right?

https://www.businessinsider.com/china-editor-says-must-suppo...

[dirtyid]

Yes? Both articles support not contradict what I said. PRC recognize RU security grievances are legitimate, i.e. US/NATO at fault (just like in Taiwan scenario), but doesn't overtly support invasion that upsets stability (just like in TW scenario), wants diplomatic solution (again, just like in TW scenario). PRC doesn't want to be dragged into this drama, putting out neutral statements. As acknowledge by Uncle Ming, who recognize need to balance between support RU and not provoking US/EU. The original Ming article is about hedging the situation to be most advantageous to PRC interests. He calls for supporting RU more morally / emotionally in private, which contradicts your thesis that already RU has PRC support. The summary basically recognize current crisis is geopolitically complex and outlines what PRC should do, i.e. exactly my analysis "the geopolitical calculus is all over the place, no reason to be hasty".