The most that China is expected to do is deploy peacekeepers together with other countries per a potentially forthcoming UNSC Resolution that would likely see these forces jointly patrol whatever the “Line of Contact” may be and monitor each side’s compliance with the ceasefire or peace treaty.
"...China is expected to play some role, but it’ll probably be as part of a UNSC-approved multilateral effort, not anything unilateral..."
President Xi will be eager and wise to present China as a willing member of the UN that is prepared to contribute positively towards the attainment of peace in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
I have a difficult time to visualize Russia agreeing to any peacekeepers inside Ukraine by any NATO nation. Even peacekeepers from third world nations are a serious risk factor as they can be easily compromised by the money printing presses of the NATO nations. In time this would be shaped into an anti-Russian force there.
I was the same way until I realized that Russia has walked back its "red lines" multiple times, beginning with Putin's famous threat to NATO not to intervene in the conflict and most recently by him not treating Ukraine's use of Western long-range missiles as NATO's direct involvement in the conflict like he earlier said that he would:
Therefore, precedent compellingly suggests that Putin's reluctance to reciprocally escalate in response to NATO being the first to do so -- presumably due to fear of unwittingly setting into motion process that'll inevitably lead to World War III (at least as he probably sees it) -- will continue, even if NATO deploys uniformed troops to Ukraine.
And yes, I know that Russia has said that it would strike such uniformed troops if they do indeed enter Ukraine, but as proven above, it made some other pretty significant threats if certain "red lines" were crossed but ultimately reconsidered once that happened.
This isn't directed at you, I'm just commenting in general, but one of the greatest problems that I've observed within the Alt-Media Community is this tendency to treat official statements as gospel.
Remember when so many folks insisted that Syria will never cede "one inch" to any anti-government group, be it a member of the "non-terrorist anti-government opposition" or bonafide terrorists like Al Nusra?
And then what happened? We all know. I'm not in any way implying that Russia's front lines will collapse, not at all. I'm only reminding folks that treating official statements as gospel can lead to deep disappointment.
As proven above, official statements of the highest sensitivity -- in that they imply the onset of a hot NATO-Russian war -- thus far haven't been acted on, with Russia instead reconsidering its response after these "red lines" were crossed.
At the same time, what I describe as "Russia's soft power managers" -- the people here who discreetly guide and sometimes even plant narratives in the Alt-Media Community -- seem to want folks to treat these statements as gospel.
As those who've followed me for a while know, I'm constructively critical of the way in which Russian soft power is practiced for the most part, in this context believing that treating official statements as gospel at this point is very risky.
If Russia reconsiders its response yet again in the scenario of another "red line" being crossed, this time through the deployment of uniformed NATO troops to Ukraine, then so many people will be even more discredited than before.
A lot of folks staked their entire reputations on Russia waging a direct war against NATO if the latter even indirectly interfered with the SMO, yet they've interfered so much at this point that it's since become the "new normal".
Once you see the patterns like I have, and I've been in this industry for 13 years (and hitherto published daily analyses from the start of the SMO till last week for 1,270+ consecutive days till my illness), you can't "un-see" them.
I'm not declaring as a statement of fact that uniformed NATO troops WILL deploy to Ukraine at any time, I'm just cautioning folks against treating official statements as gospel since precedent proves that policies do indeed change.
I use different words to characterize Russia's evolving policies, but you're right in the sense that Russia continually refuses to reciprocally escalate, with the only notable exception being the SMO itself and last November's first-ever and thus far only use of the Oreshniks.
These precedents are why I'm very concerned that countless people are getting their hopes unrealistically high by treating official statements as gospel, which could lead to deep disappointment that might then lead to them resenting Russia after feeling misled.
I think the idea of “Russia’s red lines” itself is a mis-characterization. They’ve issued warnings of consequences and there has been plenty, just not the dramatic ones many expect.
Besides, all those supposed redline crossings have turned out to be militarily insignificant or (ironically) advantageous to the RF.
The very idea of anything remotely resembling an official NATO presence in Ukraine has been one of the key underlying issues of the SMO and it hasn’t changed and is unlikely to “evolve” at all.
The very idea is particularly fanciful now with AFU on the ropes and EU itself coming apart economically.
Technically you are right Andrew: Russia’s so called Red Lines were actually soft and changeable concepts. The history of the whole SMO shows a continuous escalation of US/NATO activities as they were changing their policies on weapon systems, going from little things to F-16s and Abrams Tanks. It was obvious to all that these items and various missile systems could not function without US/NATO babysitting and micromanagement. Russia was always the flexible party, taking steps backward, refusing serious escalation as an answer.
My mental problem is in the clear understanding that there is actually a real Red Line there, a Line that even the present Russian leadership has never clearly clarified. A Line where the continuous increases of US/NATO efforts will start presenting a critical existential threat and this is the logical conclusion of the path they are walking down today. A Line where Russia will have to face the same issue Japan had to face before Pearl Harbor: WAR is unavoidable; therefore we are better off starting it.
If Russia will be pushed over this Line there will be no warning. Maybe just seconds before the attack EMP bombs will cover the skies of the opponents. There will be a few thousand preprogrammed nukes flying to decimate retaliatory strength from the West as the main primary goal. Putin actually stated once that US/NATO is trying to use Russia to start a nuclear conflict. The whole of the Ukraine conflict design from the early part indicates that Putin is likely correct. The gradual approach of US/NATO toward the Russian borders was always disregarding the question: What happens when we get there?
The Chinese rulers do not like this conflict at all. Why? Because of the Russian legitimization of it as supporting the right of peoples to self-determination (the Donbas etc. Russians). If Beijing would support that argument, they had to grant this right at least to Taiwan which is a state and de facto not ruled by the Chinese central government. So, they will never openly support Moscow here and will, quietly, adjust their maps after that conflict is over and never again talk about it.
After reflexion, I think that Poutine is ready to escalate. But I think too that for now, China nor India are not OK to let him escalate and untill today, if he would have escalated, he would did it alone. Absolutely alone. And Russia can't allow itself to be alone.
Today, at OCS, Xi speaks about new world order. What order? What order when you are a big fat turkey obsessed by bizness? What world order when you let Israël genocide Palestinians? Promoting a new world order requires muscles and balls. Poutine have them. Russia have them. And China? And India?
Because for now, their new world order is rather a new words order.
I guess from the Russians' perspective, any true neutrals in this war can be considered to serve as a peace-keeping force, if peace is achieved and if peace can be kept by such a foreign force. China fits the bill, and dragging China into the middle serves other national interests for Russia. However, from China's perspective, a peace-keeping force in Ukraine, or just a small part of it, is nothing but a hassle for China and can easily escalate to something much worse than a hassle. Given China's internal problems, let alone a likely power transition, In Xi's remaining years and the first one or two years of the new leader, China will try hard to avoid such boots on the ground action unless absolutely necessary, including Taiwan. If non-military force alone can achieve the goal, there is no need to use military force.
"...China is expected to play some role, but it’ll probably be as part of a UNSC-approved multilateral effort, not anything unilateral..."
President Xi will be eager and wise to present China as a willing member of the UN that is prepared to contribute positively towards the attainment of peace in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
I have a difficult time to visualize Russia agreeing to any peacekeepers inside Ukraine by any NATO nation. Even peacekeepers from third world nations are a serious risk factor as they can be easily compromised by the money printing presses of the NATO nations. In time this would be shaped into an anti-Russian force there.
I was the same way until I realized that Russia has walked back its "red lines" multiple times, beginning with Putin's famous threat to NATO not to intervene in the conflict and most recently by him not treating Ukraine's use of Western long-range missiles as NATO's direct involvement in the conflict like he earlier said that he would:
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67843#sel=49:1:L6w,49:95:qk6
https://www.rt.com/russia/603934-putin-warning-nato-weapons/
Therefore, precedent compellingly suggests that Putin's reluctance to reciprocally escalate in response to NATO being the first to do so -- presumably due to fear of unwittingly setting into motion process that'll inevitably lead to World War III (at least as he probably sees it) -- will continue, even if NATO deploys uniformed troops to Ukraine.
And yes, I know that Russia has said that it would strike such uniformed troops if they do indeed enter Ukraine, but as proven above, it made some other pretty significant threats if certain "red lines" were crossed but ultimately reconsidered once that happened.
This isn't directed at you, I'm just commenting in general, but one of the greatest problems that I've observed within the Alt-Media Community is this tendency to treat official statements as gospel.
Remember when so many folks insisted that Syria will never cede "one inch" to any anti-government group, be it a member of the "non-terrorist anti-government opposition" or bonafide terrorists like Al Nusra?
And then what happened? We all know. I'm not in any way implying that Russia's front lines will collapse, not at all. I'm only reminding folks that treating official statements as gospel can lead to deep disappointment.
As proven above, official statements of the highest sensitivity -- in that they imply the onset of a hot NATO-Russian war -- thus far haven't been acted on, with Russia instead reconsidering its response after these "red lines" were crossed.
At the same time, what I describe as "Russia's soft power managers" -- the people here who discreetly guide and sometimes even plant narratives in the Alt-Media Community -- seem to want folks to treat these statements as gospel.
As those who've followed me for a while know, I'm constructively critical of the way in which Russian soft power is practiced for the most part, in this context believing that treating official statements as gospel at this point is very risky.
If Russia reconsiders its response yet again in the scenario of another "red line" being crossed, this time through the deployment of uniformed NATO troops to Ukraine, then so many people will be even more discredited than before.
A lot of folks staked their entire reputations on Russia waging a direct war against NATO if the latter even indirectly interfered with the SMO, yet they've interfered so much at this point that it's since become the "new normal".
Once you see the patterns like I have, and I've been in this industry for 13 years (and hitherto published daily analyses from the start of the SMO till last week for 1,270+ consecutive days till my illness), you can't "un-see" them.
I'm not declaring as a statement of fact that uniformed NATO troops WILL deploy to Ukraine at any time, I'm just cautioning folks against treating official statements as gospel since precedent proves that policies do indeed change.
So, it's Ferial Finnster and John Bolton who are right.
Poutine is a pussy and each time he wisely move back , he invites west to laugh and go further.
Is Strelkov right?
I use different words to characterize Russia's evolving policies, but you're right in the sense that Russia continually refuses to reciprocally escalate, with the only notable exception being the SMO itself and last November's first-ever and thus far only use of the Oreshniks.
These precedents are why I'm very concerned that countless people are getting their hopes unrealistically high by treating official statements as gospel, which could lead to deep disappointment that might then lead to them resenting Russia after feeling misled.
You're right.
For years, I've been myself one of these folks feed with this kind of bullshit of AMC.
Today, I read an article of another french AMC jester: Dedefensa.
This article is an hallucination.
Based on lucubrations of one the chief jesters of AMC, Mercouris, he explain how Russia had help Iran to strengthen its AD...
Did all those fools not heard Poutine saying that Iran had refused constantly every proposition of Russia about this?
I think the idea of “Russia’s red lines” itself is a mis-characterization. They’ve issued warnings of consequences and there has been plenty, just not the dramatic ones many expect.
Besides, all those supposed redline crossings have turned out to be militarily insignificant or (ironically) advantageous to the RF.
The very idea of anything remotely resembling an official NATO presence in Ukraine has been one of the key underlying issues of the SMO and it hasn’t changed and is unlikely to “evolve” at all.
The very idea is particularly fanciful now with AFU on the ropes and EU itself coming apart economically.
I'm sceptical, if Putin is willing to accept NATO troops in Ukraine then there was no point starting the SMO in the first place.
Technically you are right Andrew: Russia’s so called Red Lines were actually soft and changeable concepts. The history of the whole SMO shows a continuous escalation of US/NATO activities as they were changing their policies on weapon systems, going from little things to F-16s and Abrams Tanks. It was obvious to all that these items and various missile systems could not function without US/NATO babysitting and micromanagement. Russia was always the flexible party, taking steps backward, refusing serious escalation as an answer.
My mental problem is in the clear understanding that there is actually a real Red Line there, a Line that even the present Russian leadership has never clearly clarified. A Line where the continuous increases of US/NATO efforts will start presenting a critical existential threat and this is the logical conclusion of the path they are walking down today. A Line where Russia will have to face the same issue Japan had to face before Pearl Harbor: WAR is unavoidable; therefore we are better off starting it.
If Russia will be pushed over this Line there will be no warning. Maybe just seconds before the attack EMP bombs will cover the skies of the opponents. There will be a few thousand preprogrammed nukes flying to decimate retaliatory strength from the West as the main primary goal. Putin actually stated once that US/NATO is trying to use Russia to start a nuclear conflict. The whole of the Ukraine conflict design from the early part indicates that Putin is likely correct. The gradual approach of US/NATO toward the Russian borders was always disregarding the question: What happens when we get there?
The Chinese rulers do not like this conflict at all. Why? Because of the Russian legitimization of it as supporting the right of peoples to self-determination (the Donbas etc. Russians). If Beijing would support that argument, they had to grant this right at least to Taiwan which is a state and de facto not ruled by the Chinese central government. So, they will never openly support Moscow here and will, quietly, adjust their maps after that conflict is over and never again talk about it.
Andrew.
After reflexion, I think that Poutine is ready to escalate. But I think too that for now, China nor India are not OK to let him escalate and untill today, if he would have escalated, he would did it alone. Absolutely alone. And Russia can't allow itself to be alone.
Today, at OCS, Xi speaks about new world order. What order? What order when you are a big fat turkey obsessed by bizness? What world order when you let Israël genocide Palestinians? Promoting a new world order requires muscles and balls. Poutine have them. Russia have them. And China? And India?
Because for now, their new world order is rather a new words order.
Since neither the US nor China will agree...
I guess from the Russians' perspective, any true neutrals in this war can be considered to serve as a peace-keeping force, if peace is achieved and if peace can be kept by such a foreign force. China fits the bill, and dragging China into the middle serves other national interests for Russia. However, from China's perspective, a peace-keeping force in Ukraine, or just a small part of it, is nothing but a hassle for China and can easily escalate to something much worse than a hassle. Given China's internal problems, let alone a likely power transition, In Xi's remaining years and the first one or two years of the new leader, China will try hard to avoid such boots on the ground action unless absolutely necessary, including Taiwan. If non-military force alone can achieve the goal, there is no need to use military force.