[sgpl]

Wondering if any geopolitical experts on HN can take a stab at explaining this move? From my rudimentary understanding, China was (has been) allied with Russia behind the scenes in this move against Ukraine.

Is this a hedge to maintain a good reputation and a good working relationship with the world by using this action as a: "Hey, look we helped Ukraine in its time of need"?

> China has refused to describe Russia's activities in Ukraine as invasion.

[kstenerud]

Russia surprised China with its invasion timing & planning, in particular the mismanagement that turned this from a regional thing into a major international incident, which is now causing a lot of embarrassment due to their mutual cooperation. They don't want to discard friendship with Russia over this, but at the same time it looks bad all around, right at the time when China is pushing hard to become the new moral, economic, and cultural center of the world.

China isn't going to assist Ukraine directly, of course, nor is it going to push hard to back Russia. But backchannel humanitarian aid always looks good, and can't be criticised. Plus it helps to drive the point home that Putin has embarrassed them and they don't like that.

[KVFinn]

>Russia surprised China with its invasion timing & planning, in particular the mismanagement that turned this from a regional thing into a major international incident

It seems like China was caught off guard by the scale, like many other people. Possibly even most of the Russian government.

The assumption by almost everyone was that Russia would recognize the separatist regions that were already essentially owned by Russia. But instead they dropped paratroopers and sent tanks straight to the capital of a European country with 45 million people.

[freeflight]

> But instead they dropped paratroopers and sent tanks straight to the capital of a European country with 45 million people.

One has to wonder how much of that difference in "geopolitical expectation" vs "strategic reality" comes down to military decisions around geography?

Geopolitically it would make sense for Russia to only go into the separatist regions and reinforce them, after all that's been their publicly stated goal since the beginning, such a "short-range invasion" into territories who are already mostly pro-Russian would have been a rather quick and done deal.

But from a military strategic perspective these areas might not be very good defensive positions long term, especially when the prospect is anything that involves masses of NATO forces. While just bit further West the Dnieper presents a very convenient geographical barrier, with Kyiv sitting right in the middle of it.

[rightbyte]

Ye well the war-war feel of the invasion really suprised me. After watching tank after tank roll over the border on some webcam I was not very cocky a couple of borders away.

But still I didn't grasp the scale of it until paratroopers helidropped at some airport. The risk in such a manouver is insane and was really a scarier insight that this is a real war than rows of tanks.

I really thought the "peacekeeping force" Russia sent in to separatist territories was it and what the US had been warning against.

[belter]

Looks like there is Chinese media embedded with Russian troops:

https://youtu.be/Xl0W8Pgza4k

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/150118843952964403...

"Chinese media is reporting within Russia's captured territories and embedded with Russian troops" https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/t9h3rp/chinese_med...

[prewett]

And it’s not even expensive, just $800k and they get a headline on Reuters.

[CapricornNoble]

Largely agree with your post except:

My understanding is Xi knew of the invasion well-ahead, and actually told Putin to delay it, to not interfere with the Beijing Olympics. This might partly explain the logistical problems the Russians are having: when they first started massing combat power, they didn't plan to have 150,000+ guys sitting around in the winter for quite this long.

[kstenerud]

Yes he did know, sorry if I wasn't clear enough. The issue is that it was bungled horribly and turned into an international incident when it shouldn't have.

TBH I'm still surprised Russia didn't employ salami tactics, taking the breakaway regions while holding troops on the Ukrainian border as a deterrence to interfere, and to warn them away from NATO.

But then again, word on the street is that Putin really did believe that Ukrainians consider themselves Russian at heart and would welcome him.

... Or maybe he just got impatient?

[FinanceAnon]

How could it not have been turned into a major international incident?

It feels weird even calling this 'an incident'. It's not like they invaded by mistake

[kstenerud]

I mean "regional" as in like Crimea, where the West talks up a bunch and imposes some sanctions that Russia shrugs off, but otherwise nothing comes of it.

The point is that in Putin's eyes, Ukraine should have put up a token defence at best before succumbing to the will of the people to rejoin Russia. It was most definitely NOT supposed to turn into this shitshow that forces countries and multinationals alike to choose sides.

And now America is going to milk it (much to Poland's consternation) by allowing this assault to continue, knowing full well that Putin is trapped and can't retreat lest he lose his head over it. So Russia will bleed herself dry over the next 1-2 months in an impossible war as he grasps at straw after straw until someone puts him out of his misery. Russia will be neutralized for decades to come (possibly forever), the cold warriors will rejoice, and Eastern Europe will join a West-centric alliance that can help defend against China's aimed rise to supremacy.

At least that's the plan. But China is no slouch when it comes to geopolitics and intrigue. Belt and road took a hit, but it's far from out.

[kmonsen]

I heard this theory as well that the U.S. and uk see this as a win. So far probably true, but this can very easy and up in nuclear war if Putin is pushed too far. Putin is obviously the only aggressor here, but I think he was baited and cannot understand how he fell for it. He must have been delusional enough to think the Russian troops would be welcomed with open arms.

[s1artibartfast]

Russia tried salami tactics in Georgia in 2008 after NATO looked to expand there. In 2021 NATO decided Georgia was still on the table (along with Ukraine), demonstrating that small actions aren't enough to stop expansion.

Also, simply pausing the official NATO process with Ukraine was insufficient, because the US was already giving a billion dollars of arms plus training to Ukraine independent of it's NATO status.

[podviaznikov]

Not an expert. But this is tiny amount of money. So probably a formality. I know individuals who raised more for Ukraine from their friends.

Also Red Cross seems to be dead. Many people on the ground said that in the past 8 years in Ukraine it did nothing.

Will need more research but it seems to be highly ineffective organization that spends a lot of money and doesn’t produce much.

So sending this amount of money is basically nothing and looks like PR move.

[powerapple]

It is not money, it is products needed for refuges.

[mekster]

Yeah, China is like, "Don't look at us as if we're on the bullying side, oh hey, I just happen to have a cookie, look."

[powerapple]

It is more like big guys like US and Russia are swearing at each other, they push Ukraine around, now he is bleeding, China wants nothing to do with it, so provided some medicine. Now everyone suddenly find China to blame. Very nice. China didn't invade Iraq, and China didn't invade Ukraine, now China is the bad guy.

[trasz]

In which case it might be worth orders of magnitude more - basic stuff in China is way cheaper than in the West, and here they can also bypass all the usual middleman.

[powerapple]

Exactly. I don't understand west's point. They are not going to fight, and they will just supply weapon to make the war bloodier. And now they are pushing Poland to have direct conflict with Russia.

[trasz]

They supply weapons so that Ukraine can defend. And one of the things we now know is that Russian army is a laughing stock. They can be dangerous to civilians though, thus the need for SAMs.

[throwaway4good]

Given that India, China and a bunch of other countries do not condemn the invasion nor participate in the sanctions against Russia, most of the world, in terms of population, is actually not on the "western side" of this conflict.

China in general is concerned with trade.

[adventured]

> most of the world, in terms of population, is actually not on the "western side" of this conflict

How do we know which side those people are on?

Either way, fortunately the world doesn't function by 51% majority vote.

[trasz]

US wouldn’t join Chinese sanctions either.

[jacknews]

My guess is the Red Cross decided on the donation, and the CCP jumped on it, to take the credit, and deflect from their own lack of action - the announcement does appear to be from the foreign ministry.

Supporting evidence is that the amount is paltry, even insulting, as a govt donation, so either they were rushed into 'sponsoring' the existing announcement, or they are sending a message of barely even token aid.

[pvaldes]

I assume that Chinese oligarchs had taken good lessons about the fate of Russian oligarchs properties in the western countries (and specially about their money movements being watched more closely).

[muzani]

I often recommend reading SCMP to see China's real stance. Western media tends to demonize China unfairly.

This one is quite telling: https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3168656/u...

Everyone knows China as a Russian trade partner but they're also a major Ukrainian trade partner as well.

If you want a more neutral source there's Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Ukraine_relation...

[WinstonSmith84]

not a geopolitical expert, but apparently China is trying to show a neutral stance. Or at least attempt to not antagonise either party https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2022/03/minitrue-turn-down-tem...

[raxxorrax]

Maybe they realized that it surprised people that they did support Russia the directly. Many had no illusions about that, but would have expected their statements towards the invasion to be more diplomatic.

[actuator]

This is Chinese Red cross and not China but this is very similar to what one more friend of Russia, India is doing. They have also sent in humanitarian aid.

Humanitarian aid helps you support people and not help in the defense of Ukraine, so Russia won't mind.

Also, compared to China's GDP, this is nothing when you compare it to other countries.

[irl_]

China and Chinese Red Cross are different things.

[sgpl]

Yeah I'd like to think that too, but the article mentions in its first paragraph that this aid was announced by the 'Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian.'

So in this case it doesn't seem like they're different.

[trasz]

China appears to be finally adjusting their course: “China steps away from Russia, finally calling the invasion of Ukraine a ‘war’”.

https://fortune.com/2022/03/02/china-civilians-harm-russia-i...

[trasz]

China is essentially pacifist. And it’s not just their politics; it’s how Chinese - the actual people - feel. Invading anyone just isn’t their thing.

So, they are quite unhappy with Russia’s invasion, but they can’t join US sanctions, because US. Instead they’ll probably sanction Russia silently, and then buy out Russian industry for peanuts.

[eloisius]

This is news for anyone living in Taiwan.

[trasz]

Only if you believe in propaganda instead of looking at the facts. Can you tell me what offensive actions against Taiwan China has actually made?

[adventured]

> Only if you believe in propaganda instead of looking at the facts. Can you tell me what offensive actions against Taiwan China has actually made?

You're clearly ignoring facts. They have increasingly frequently breached Taiwan's airspace with attack aircraft, which is a crystal clear threat that nobody can confuse (which is the point). And when they're not airspace breaches, they're as close as they can get to it in order to torment/bully Taiwan.

January 22: "Taiwan reports new large-scale incursion by Chinese warplanes. The 39 planes warned away from the island’s air defense zone were the most on a single day since October."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/taiwan-reports-new-large-...

China has also directly threatened to force Taiwan into reunification as needed. The threat of force is an offensive action. If I threaten to invade my neighbor's house to take their property, that's an offensive action, it's not mere speech. If I threaten to kill my neighbor (which is what a forced reunification entails to one degree or another), that is an offensive action, it is not mere speech.

"China’s Xi threatens Taiwan with force but also seeks peaceful 'reunification'"

https://www.france24.com/en/20190102-china-xi-jinping-says-t...

[eloisius]

I consider the threat of violence to be violence, so I'm with you, China commits aggressive offenses against Taiwan by threatening anexation. But, a significant nit I have to pick is that China doesn't violate Taiwanese airspace. Doing that could be an act of war and may get a plane shot down. They enter Taiwan's ADIZ, which span Taiwanese airspace, over international waters and even covers about 2/3 of China's Fujian province. ADIZ isn't airspace. It's just the zone that Taiwan monitors.

[trasz]

“Chinese people don’t attack other Chinese people. We are willing to use the greatest sincerity and expend the greatest hard work to strive for the prospect of peaceful reunification”

Warmongering indeed. /s

[eloisius]

Followed by “We do not promise to renounce the use of force and reserve the option to use all necessary measures”

[eloisius]

Are we limited to actions they have successfully carried out, or just those they threaten to? Are you implying that it’s Western/Taiwanese propaganda that China is willing to forcibly unify Taiwan and that in fact China would never consider it?

[trasz]

Precisely - China has been repeatedly saying they wouldn’t invade Taiwan. What you are describing is our western rhetoric built around it, which essentially assumes everything they say is a lie.

We are perversely enthusiastic towards wars. Chinese - the people, not just their government - hate war. Even if sometimes it’s not a good thing, like when declining to join economic war against Russia.

[reducesuffering]

> China has been repeatedly saying they wouldn’t invade Taiwan.

This is the argument you're still positing after the last month? Is the irony lost on you? I guess if it's not crystal clear: https://www.npr.org/2022/01/10/1071766987/u-s-russia-dicuss-...

[acdha]

> China has been repeatedly saying they wouldn’t invade Taiwan

China also promised that Hong Kong would operate as it had until 2047 so clearly the Taiwanese have reason to question the sincerity of these claims.

[eloisius]

Xi has said over and over that if his ends can’t be achieved peacefully he will use force to unify Taiwan with China. He’s said that Taiwan independence is a red line for invasion. I’m having a hard time believing that you’re arguing in good faith while denying these facts, which can be found in Western, Taiwanese and Chinese media.

[acdha]

Is it propaganda that China blocks international recognition of Taiwan? That's not the same as troops on the ground but it's a pretty basic rejection of their sovereignty and it shows up all over the place accompanied by threats.

[trasz]

According to various polls about half of Taiwanese support maintaining current status quo; those who prefer independence are still a (growing) minority.

This alone, when compared with your assumptions, shows the rift between reality and western media rhetorics.

[acdha]

If you're familiar with the polls, you should also know that this issue is more complicated than how you're portraying it. The status quo isn't miserable so it's unsurprising that many people want to avoid forcing changes which have potentially disastrous downsides. That makes it important to specify exactly which polls you're referring to and what the options are.

Here's a good chart to consider for the history percentages of people who identify as Taiwanese rather than Chinese or both. Clearly that has been moving solidly in the direction of an independent identity:

https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/upload/44/doc/6961/People202112.jpg

(Source: https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7800&id=6961)

Now, here's the chart from polls looking at what people want:

https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/upload/44/doc/6963/Tondu202112.jpg

(Source: https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963)

That shows a more complicated position: support for either immediate unification or independence has been a minority position for a long time but “maintain status quo, move towards independence” has grown from ~8% to 25% with a notable spike starting in 2019 and a decline in both “maintain status quo, decide at later date” and “maintain status quo, move toward unification”.

[nowherebeen]

Err.. daily trespassing airspace to measure their response time.

[eloisius]

To be fair, they don't violate Taiwanese airspace. They enter Taiwan's Air Defense Identification Zone, and Taiwan scrambles jets in preperation to intercept if they violate airspace. But they have periodically threatened to do a flyover to assert their claims.

[mekster]

You already forgot what happened in Hong Kong?

[freeflight]

You apparently forgot what happened in Nanking in 1842 [0], you know, how Hong Kong ended up as "British" in the first place?

That didn't happen trough "democracy and freedom", that happened trough literal British colonial conquest and subjugation.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nanking#Cession_of_H...

[adventured]

Why would an offense from 150 years ago justify the enslavement and torture (revocation of all human rights by a dictatorship) of a free people today? It obviously doesn't.