• CloutAtlas [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Focusing on Chinese drones that end up in Russia while completely ignoring the Chinese drones that end up in the Ukraine is some cherry picking I expected from the Telegraph. Products and components are made in China, which shouldn’t come as a surprise.

          • GaveUp [she/her]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            That lack of distinction is 100% on purpose since China dominates the consumer drones market and they’re so versatile and capable that countries all over the world including the US buy DJI drones for military operations

            Can blame China for giving every country “drones”

            • Redcat [he/him]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              china dominates the consumer goods market, period. by these standards the chinese have been supplying every NATO war for the past 20 years.

          • SeaJ@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            They do. They have Bayraktar drones.

            I do agree that the lack of distinction is kind of stupid.

              • SeaJ@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                However, a year later, nearly all of them are believed to have been shot down by Russian forces.

                The remaining killer drones are now reduced to reconnaissance duties, an expert said.

                This would mean they still have some.

        • SeaJ@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          I don’t think you can buy Bayraktar drones from your local general store…

  • mar_k [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    The Telegraph is the only one reporting this, we’re supposed to believe a sensationalist conservative tabloid?

    • Dolores [love/loves]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      well if you trade metal to Russia, and metal goes in weapons, you are basically handing them weapons of mass destruction if you think about it smuglord

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It looks like the data is from Malfar Group which dubs itself as open source intelligence (whatever that means). Looking at their website, it is all Ukraine related. That’s fine in and of itself but it should be noted by them or The Telegraph. But The Telegraph is not exactly a paragon of journalistic integrity.

  • barsoap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Probably not for long given the state of the Rouble and the economy. Tech-wise Russia has nothing to offer and when it comes to the stuff China might be interested in, such as ores and oil, well you’d have to not send miners to the front to continue producing them. That Russia of all countries is importing metals should make you stop and think.

    Lenin is rotating in his mausoleum.

  • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Just an endless slew of clickbait “China bad” headlines all the time. Really makes you wonder about if there is some sort of systemic problem with western media.

    • Apollo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Authoritarian countries tend to be criticised in liberal western democracies, you know, because of all of the authoritarianism.

      • zephyreks@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        How much control do you really have over a government that only has two parties? FPTP is a failure. It leaves government without accountability, pisses on the principle of equal representation, and shifts power towards the few areas that may actually flip.

        If you lose this federal election, so what? Eventually, people will get angry enough at the current ruling party to flip.

        If you vote, so what? Unless you’re in a swing state, your vote might as well not exist for the presidential election.

        What about representation in the house? Well, again, your vote doesn’t really matter unless you’re in a swing district (which tends to be suburban). If you’re urban (liberal) or rural (conservative), you might as well not vote either.

      • Historical_General@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Everyone is a little bit authoritarian. It’s the intent and end result that gives it meaning. You don’t see France being criticised these days do you despite their citizenry being vocal about their regime’s mismanagement. We’ve even seemingly had a Western media blackout effectively on it for the past month (they’ve had riots/protests).

        • Apollo@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          When was the last time France massacred protestors by using tanks to turn them into red paste?

          When was the last time France rounded up its citzens based on ethbicity and religion and put them into reeducation camps?

          Western media blackout? Maybe in your bubble mate, though I tend to follow these things deliberately so I’m not best placed to say. Western media is a joke regardless - owned and controlled by a few wealthy and powerful individuals, who sadly almost all hold similar politics beliefs.

    • MariaRomanov@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Russia has been a third world nation since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Politicians just like to use the Russian boogeyman to scare people who remember the Cold War. Putin may be a monster, but China is the real threat.

      • IDriveWhileTired@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Sorry, but the real threat to what exactly?

        Edited: aside from Taiwan, Hong Kong, several other nations in the east. My question was more in the context of China as a threat to anything in the western hemisphere. They are the eastern version of the US, no doubt about it.

        • MariaRomanov@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          The US status as a hegemony.

          With India on the rise as well I think we are transitioning into a pre-WW1 like multipolar balance of power which could slide into WW3. Safest option would be China and the US dominate everyone else and we get another Cold War, but we will see.

  • lamassu@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    Beijing issued a 12-point “peace statement” earlier this year that rehashed its position and did not propose any solutions to ending the war.

    You obviously didn’t read it then…

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      It contains points such as “sovereignty should be respected” but no proposal as to how to make Russia respect Ukraine’s sovereignty.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          So how does China intend to end the war, respecting Ukraine’s sovereignty, without getting Russian leadership to subscribe to the said principle?

            • barsoap@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              A ceasefire at this point would benefit Russia militarily.

              And “should”? “preferably”? Are you going to bend reality by the force of moral imperatives?

              Russia is unwilling to hold peace talks that involve Ukraine being sovereign and having its territorial integrity intact. According to the Chinese list itself, it’s Russia that needs to make the next step towards peace – by fucking off to behind its own borders.

              • Bnova [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 years ago

                My brother in Christ, Ukraine is unwilling to hold peace talks with Ukraine being sovereign. The last time they were close to a peace deal Boris Johnson flew his orangutan ass into Ukraine like Marry Poppins and killed the peace deal. Sovereign nations really do get to have Boris Johnson have final say in all decision making.

                • FluffyPotato@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  No way he has any influence in a foreign country, Boris Johnson can’t even influence his own hair. Britain is like irrelevant on a global scale.

              • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 years ago

                A ceasefire at this point would benefit Russia militarily.

                It would also benefit the people of Ukraine who are currently living in an active warzone.

                This should not be difficult to understand.

      • lamassu@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Thank you for sharing the link comrade. I should have done it, but I had just 420 blazed it and it would have taken forever for me to find. No 69 unfortunately 🥲

  • Thordros [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    China: sends Russia six helicopters (before the war), some children’s toys, a box of consumer-grade hunting scopes, and metal. They are the bad guys who are prolonging the war.

    NATO: sends Ukraine weapons and military vehicles worth more than China’s entire military budget, and provides training and logistics support. They are the good guys trying to end the war.

        • ToastyWaffle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Good point never thought of it like that before. I love Bill Clinton, Neoliberalism is radical. Did you know he played the saxophone? So cool. Slava USA

      • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Does your definition of “attack” include locking people in a church and burning them alive? How about sponsoring Neo-Nazi paramilitaries to murder and rape people for seaking a language? Shelling cities and civilians in defiance of international cease fire treaties?

        • figaro@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          I don’t mean to get in an argument, because that isn’t at all productive.

          I wonder though - if Russia hadn’t illegally occupied Ukraine/Crimea, would that have happened?

          • Thordros [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            I wonder though - if Russia hadn’t illegally occupied Ukraine/Crimea, would that have happened?

            If Ukrainian neo-Nazis hadn’t trapped ethnic Russians in a building and burned them alive, would Russia have invaded?

            My point is: there are no good guys in this conflict. Just two bad guys duking it out, with regular schmucks like you and me getting murdered for no reason. Anything that prolongs the conflict is bad.

            • figaro@lemdro.id
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              For the record - I agree that burning people alive in a building is bad, and war should be avoided if possible.

              You didn’t really answer my question though. Why do the resistance groups exist in the first place?

              • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 years ago

                We’ve got a document that lays out the timeline in some detail, but I can’t find it right now.

                The short version is that this is a continuation of a very, very long conflict between the western powers and Russia for control of Russia’s resources. Like in a broad sense this geopolitical conflict as been going on for hundreds of years - Europe and now the USA want access to Russia’s resources and to do that they have to get rid of the government currently in charge of Russia. In the past this was all kinds of great power bullshit, Napoleon’s attempt to invade Moscow. Then it was the Russian civil war, where all the Western powers invaded Russia to try to stop the Reds, then WWII when the Nazis and their allies wanted to conquer everything east of them, exterminate or enslave the Slavs, and do Westward Expansion 2.0: Eastward Edition. Then the Cold War, where NATO was formed to counter and eventually destroy the Eastern Block. Well, 1991 happened, the USSR was destroyed, A few coups and murders and the shock doctrine ensured that the capitalists could loot everything, but ultimately the West didn’t get the complete control of Russian territory and resources they wanted. Too many former Soviet Oligarchs and gangsters got in the way and control of the region stayed more or less in local hands - Russian Oligarchs in Russia, Ukrainian Oligarchs in Ukraine, and so on. NATO didn’t disband after 1991, and didn’t let Russia join when Putin tried a few times,because NATO’s purpose is conquest of Russia and they hadn’t pulled that off yet. NATO started annexing countries and moving it’s borders towards Russia, forward positioning troops and weapons, and gradually encircling Russia on it’s populous Western borders. When NATO started talking about moving in to Georgia the Russian’s responded, invaded Georgia, and put an end to that. At some point later NATO decided to move on Ukraine, take control, and use it as a proxy to weaken Russia. They used the same tactic by supporting the Islamists in Afghanistan decades prior, and they’d used it in the middle east and few other places. The basic program is - destabilize a country, flood it with weapons, then let their neighbors bleed themselves dry trying to contain the insurgency. In pursuit of this NATO deployed a bunch of Ukrainian Nazis they’d saved after WWII for exactly this purpose and were gradually able to expand their influence in the country. 2013, the President of Ukraine doesn’t want to sign a shitty deal with Europe both because it would fuck over Ukraine and it would fuck over Ukraine’s trade with Russia, and the Nazis, almost entirely headquartered in Western Ukraine, use this as an excuse to take control of popular unrest and stage a coup. It gets nasty, Ukrainian Nationalists burn a bunch of Russian speaking Ukrainians to death, they throw the president out, the new coup government immediately passes laws making the previously legal Russian language illegal. Out East in the regions where most Ukrainians speak Russian, they see a bunch of Nazis who want them exterminated couping the government, they see the new coup government passing laws against their language, they say “Fuck this, we know what comes next” and take up arms demanding that Kiev grant them autonomy - some government autonomy, guarantees on their right to speak their language and protect their culture, basic shit. Kiev says no, tries to send the army in to Donbass to crush them, the army tells Kiev “Fuck you”. Kiev isn’t giving up so they arm all the Nazis and send them in to Donbass and they start murdering people. This turns in to a civil war. During the civil war NATO moves in. They start re-structuring, training, and arming the Ukrainian military loyal to Kiev. They stockpile all kinds of weapons and shit. The Nazis are rotating back from the front lines with combat experience and are getting integrated in to army units while their civilian Nazi counterparts are getting more and more control over western Ukraine’s government, civic institutions, and culture. This goes on for years, Ukrainians kill thousands of Ukrainians. Meanwhile Russia, who doesn’t want any of this shit happening in their neighborhood, is trying to get some kind of peace negotiations going to stop the conflict and stabilize Ukraine before it falls apart and turns in to a failed state. Well, Ukraine and a bunch of NATO goverments say yes, we’ll talk, lets resolve this, then the Ukrainian Nazis break all the ceasefires and shitcan the peace talks. Happens twice, the accords were called Minsk I and Minsk II. We later find out that Germany and France, who were acting as restaurants of the peace talks, never had any intention of fulfilling the peace conditions and were just buying time to arm Ukraine. Eventually it’s 2020 or something. Ukrainians are sick of this, they don’t want to be at war with their own countrymen, they don’t want to get dragged in to war with Russia because of Nazi psychos, so they vote for Zelensky. Zelensky’s a very charismatic guy, well known from television, speaks Ukrainian and Russia. He runs on a peace platform, says he’s going to uphold the cease fire and start negotiations. Well, once he takes office he goes out to the front and tells the guys at the front to shot shelling Donbass. The guys who are running the Front are Nazi fanatics, they tell him he’s not in charge and he can go fuck himself and they keep shelling. So now Zelensky knows how Ukraine really works, he starts working with NATO and the Nationalists as basically a cheer-leader for Kiev and Galacia’s agenda. Doesn’t really have any power but he looks good on TV. This whole thing finally comes to a head when someone decides that the Ukrainian army, with all it’s NATO training and equipment and guns and NATO provided Nazis, is ready to go crush Donbass. There’s a big build-up - Ukraine is mobilizing it’s army to go in to the east of the country and fight the Donbass republics plus whatever Specops guys Russia has sent in there. Russia is mobilizing part of it’s army at the Ukrainian border and making threatening noises.

                Now, it’s February of 2022. Russia has it’s troops on Ukraine’s border. Ukrainian troops are moving East in to Donbass. Putin is making threatening noises, but no one thinks he’ll actually pull the trigger and cross the border. Well, for whatever reason, and it’s still unclear what he was thinking, he pulls the trigger. He claims that he’s doing it to protect Russian speaking Ukrainians from the Banderite Nazis who intend to genocide them (probably in the driving them from their homes sense rather than the extermination of all men, women, and children sense but who knows with Nazis?). That might even be true. But other reasons are that he was finally sick of putting up with NATOs bullshit after decades of post-cold-war hostility, or he had a bad understanding of the situation and thought he could win a decisive victory with that swift attack on Kiev, or maybe he thought people in Ukraine were more angry with their government than they were and would demand some kind of end of hostilities? Who knows, high level commanders and presidents aren’t always very bright and aren’t always getting good intel. Whatever happened, Russia made us all look like idiots by invading (pretty much no one, including me, thought he’d actually do it), and now there was a hot war between NATO forces and Russian forces, except everyone inside NATO pretends that it’s between Ukraine and Russia.

                So, that’s the very, very, very short, basically no details, rough sketch version of what lead up to the war. I didn’t even mention stuff like the activities of Ukrainian Nazis in Canada and the US, or all of Russia’s security concerns, or the weird fucked up relationship between the Russiand government and the US government, or how Russia didn’t really invade Crimea because the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet and tons of support personnel were already stationed in Crimea so they really just changed the flags, or the role of propaganda in NATOs decisions on which weapons to send and which weapons to withhold, or what Trump’s trade war bullshit likely had to do with all this, or a trillion other things.

                Suffice to say, there’s a lot of history behind this conflict. And since it’s very unlikely either side will definitively win there will probably be more wars in this on-going geopolitical struggle between whoever is in charge of the west and whoever is in charge of Russia in the future, even if NATO and the Russian federation both collapse tomorrow. There’s no way we’re going to make it through the 21st century without intense wars over the vast unexploited resources of Siberia.

                Either way, that’s the very short summary.

        • figaro@lemdro.id
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          I think my question was misunderstood.

          Your original post makes it seem like you think NATO are the bad guys here because they are supplying weapons to Ukraine to defend themselves.

          I asked “who attacked who” because to me, it seems pretty clear that Russia, a dictatorship whose government has a history of human rights violations and disregard for human life, is doing a bad thing when they invade a neighboring country and start shooting missiles at civilian homes on a daily basis for a year and half.

          Could you explain how this is not a clear “Russia doing bad thing, we should help Ukraine” situation?

          • UnicodeHamSic [he/him]@hexbear.netBanned
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 years ago

            NATO is mostly responsible for the dead Ukrainians. Ukraine has no reason to fight this war. If they lose, fine, the Russian part gets renamed and a higher minimum wage. Only rich assholes lose out. If Ukraine wins they get dead sons and burned schools but the US oil companies are happy.

            It is pretty clear Ukraine shouldn’t be fighting this war for the US companies.

            • figaro@lemdro.id
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 years ago

              What percentage of Ukrainians support defending their country?

              Should it be their decision whether to keep fighting?

              • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 years ago

                If it were up to Ukrainians to collectively decide whether or not to continue the conflict, Zelensky would not have canceled the elections for his position later this year.

                • figaro@lemdro.id
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  The Ukrainian constitution does not allow for elections to be held during periods of martial law, which was declared at the start of the war.

                  If there is ever a good time to declare martial law, being invaded by a neighboring country might qualify as a justifiable time.

                  In any case, it’s constitutional, but Ukrainian political process isn’t what we are here to talk about.

                  Fundamentally, I agree with you - If the majority of Ukrainians were to decide they don’t want the war to continue, the war should stop. The number show, however, that the people are not ready to give up.

                • figaro@lemdro.id
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  While humorous, that isn’t actually how polls work. I’d suggest looking up the statistics. The majority of Ukrainians, even in the Eastern regions, still support defending themselves.

                  Does that mean that the majority of Ukrainians support fighting the war for the sake of US companies? Or could there be something else they are fighting for?