Is WWIII inevitable?

[shadow]

Amir Tsarfati

In the past 48 hours i have been exposed to footage of barbaric Russian shelling that led to the death of innocent Ukrainian civilians. One case was an elderly couple driving a car that was directly hit by a Russian tank shell, while the other is a of a family: a mother son, daughter and their dogs that were killed by a tank shell as well. In both cases these were civilians trying to escape the area. I will spare you the horrific videos. Heartbreaking!

The US is sending two Patriot missile batteries to Poland, the latest move from the Pentagon to put in place the military infrastructure needed to help run a war in Europe and meet the pledge to defend NATO territory.

Sent from my ASUS_Z017DA using Tsikot Forums mobile app

Вхід у Facebook | Facebook


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ry_Tower]

mauna china

Bakit nga ba hindi?

[tsupermario]

The war in Ukraine has prompted renewed appeals for China to get involved in an international crisis, with commentators discussing how the country is well-placed to negotiate an end to the fighting. Politicians have taken up the call too: the Ukrainian foreign minister reportedly asked China to get involved, while on Tuesday European leaders video-called Chinese leader Xi Jinping in an effort to keep them in the loop.

These ideas all make good sense -- but are likely to fail. That's because China, far from being able to act decisively on the world stage, suffers from a chronic leadership void that leaves it paralyzed to act in the face of global crises.

When the war started nearly two weeks ago, China's response was mind-numbingly predictable: the West is to blame, sanctions are counterproductive, and "all sides" should use restraint (as if this were a quarrel among equals and both sides were to blame). At first, it was possible to see China as simply caught in a dilemma -- forced to mouth platitudes because it was shocked at Russia's behavior but unwilling to criticize its closest friend.

But 10 days later, foreign minister Wang Yi doubled down on support for Moscow, on Monday calling Russia his country's "most important strategic partner." In response to growing hopes that China might use its clout with Moscow to mediate, he said the country might do so "when the time is right" -- in other words, not in any meaningful timeframe that would stop the bloodshed.

China's reticence isn't new. For decades, western leaders pushed China to be a strategic partner or stakeholder in the global international order. Many have imagined that sooner or later China would rise to the occasion, and in an emergency such as today's its diplomats would use their good offices to solve a global crisis.

But the reality is that China is so obsessed with a narrow set of issues that it is unable to be more than a character actor on the international stage, appearing in a few specific roles but otherwise out of its depth.

China reacts forcefully around two domestic issues, mainly: Taiwan and human rights. Countries that do not toe China's line on Taiwan -- that it must return to China, regardless of what its residents think -- are hounded mercilessly.
…
On the other core issue of human rights: Anyone who argues that they are universal is meddling in China's internal affairs. To this end, China supports other countries that are also criticized for violating the declaration, arguing that these are their internal affairs, too.

But on most other issues, China doesn't really care. Drugs, terrorism, public health, climate change -- China has interests in all these issues but rarely takes the lead. At best, it offers a few ideas and then follows deals hammered out by other countries.
…
This is why it is illusory to think that China can play a constructive role in Ukraine. On paper, it makes sense. China is Russia's last major market now that the West has largely cut ties with them. Xi's diplomats could easily get Russia's ear and suggest, ever so subtly, that some sort of settlement would be beneficial to all sides.

It would also be in China's best interests to take such a step. China grew rich in the international order that Putin seeks to destroy. Ultimately it needs to compete with the world's leading countries, and to do that it needs an open world system with a free flow of capital and ideas. Slumming it with dysfunctional states like Russia only drags China down.

This could still happen, and China might set aside its domestic priorities to help end the crisis. But doing so would require a seismic shift. Playing the middleman would require China to distance itself from Russia, after boasting that their friendship has "no limits."
Instead, China is likely to act neutral but continue to show most of its sympathy for Russia, not Ukraine or the democracies fighting to save its independence.

That's because everything Xi has implemented at home has been to stifle free thought, not unleash it. He views the democratic world with such distrust. He hopes China will supplant them but with home-grown innovation and not a robust exchange of ideas and products. It is a self-centered world vision, one where ties are mainly zero-sum: you win, I lose.

In this context, if the West is embroiled in a dispute with Russia over Europe, then China wins. Becoming involved in foreigners' disputes makes no sense. Better to stay out of the fray, see who is likely to win, and then cut deals.

What keeps China from stopping Russia's war

Opinion: What keeps China from stopping Russia's war - CNN

[Ry_Tower]

And meron pa rin nag justify na tama si Putin sa giyera na ito?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As long as there are propagandist I'm sure there will be. Just watch RT and Al Jazzera and all their "experts" and "political analysts" toe the line of Putin's justification. Naziization of Ukraine, really? come on now.

[uls]

this woman is responsible for the ukraine coup in 2014

this woman will cause WW3

if anyone cares to read

Who is Victoria Nuland? A really bad idea as a key player in Biden's foreign policy team | Salon.com



not RT, not aljazeera

an american news & opinion website

[tsupermario]

[Athrunzala]

Oo, ayaw ipick-up ng mainstream media ang news na ito...

[shadow]

Naku! mukhang mag start na gumamit ng bio weapon ang Russia.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[uls]

bakit in the first place meron US-funded bioweapons lab sa ukraine

russia already said meron bioweapons lab the ukraine but western media called it disinformation / fake news / conspiracy theory

then the neocon Nuland just confirmed there is biopweaons research being done in Ukraine

[Ry_Tower]

bakit in the first place meron US-funded bioweapons lab sa ukraine

russia already said meron bioweapons lab the ukraine but western media called it disinformation / fake news / conspiracy theory

then the neocon Nuland just confirmed there is biopweaons research being done in Ukraine

Weapons lab are usually top secret naman talaga. Why expose when not needed. It could be that media was given a different info before. That's a POV. Lagi 2 sides of the coin diba.

The United States said Tuesday it was working with Ukraine to prevent invading Russian forces from seizing biological research material amid concern governments or unscrupulous actors might try to use such items to create bioweapons.

“Ukraine has biological research facilities, which in fact we are now quite concerned Russian troops, Russian forces, may be seeking to gain control of,” senior State Department official Victoria Nuland told US lawmakers at a hearing when asked directly whether Ukraine has bioweapons.

Read more: US 'concerned' Russia wants to seize Ukraine bioresearch | Inquirer News
Follow us: *inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook

Pero parang iba naman sinabi dito, hindi bioweapons lab specifically, biological research facility. Well that's another POV.

It's one thing to do research, another to use it indiscriminately though.

Hope both side doesn't resort to it if ever.