Sovereign countries can’t choose their allies? Really? When long-time neutral countries have decided that not even being neutral will protect them anymore from invasion, your answer is that they should be invaded?

History started only in the 2000s for you. I understand.

You don’t care about the invaded people.

Putting just randomly invading Ukraine. No interests, no security concerns, no geopolitics involved, am I right?

Oh so you don’t care about the people then, got it.

Oh so you don’t care about Israelis, just letting the Palestinians take hostages, got it.

Russian military bases are visible on google maps

https://kyivindependent.com/missile-strikes-kursk-apartment-building-russian-official-claims/

I guess this building was also seen on Google maps

Ukrainian troops have been training in nato countries since close to the beginning of the war

It’s one thing to train and supply a force, it’s another man that supply

The NATO long range missiles are dependent on (NATO) satalite intelligence, meaning the west provides targets to Ukraine. Also apparently the NATO provided systems take a while to learn, so NATO personell has to be mounting them. How this is not considered a direct involvement of NATO and a major escalation is beyond me. Fucken libs are gonna get everyone killed, just to make a nice dividend on their defense stock

Can you explain why supporting US interests in the middle east is bad (among others arms sales in “Israel”), but supporting US interests in Ukraine (arms sales, privatization) is good somehow?

Free Palestine, Fuck NATO.

NATO expansion

Even with a treaty in place, why would Ukraine not trying to become stronger with the Russian threat?

Because “getting stronger” in this context means militarily. Why would you want to bolster your military, when the Minsk treaty guarantees safety from russia? Not implementing the treaty and continued prospect of joining NATO, bolstering Ukraines military antagonized Russia, as they saw that the Minsk agreement got ignored. Merkel admitting that it was just to buy time, proved the Russians right.

They also used the time to become stronger. But that was not the goal of Minsk.

Yea it was to bring peace. Why would you want “to become stronger”, when part of the peace agreement was to become a buffer zone to NATO? Why else would the Russians else have signed it? How do you explain that with Merkel saying that it was just to buy time? Wouldn’t the Russians feel betrayed/played if it wasn’t implemented for peace, but just to stall them?

Sie hat diese Zeit hat auch genutzt, um stärker zu werden, wie man heute sieht.

It [Ukraine] also used this time to become stronger, as we can see today.

time to mature

You mean “time to become stronger” i.e. prepare for war and not implement minsk II (why would you want to “become stronger” if not prepare for war; it’s in contradiction with implementing minsk)

Show me the original interview where Merkel said that.

“Hatten Sie gedacht, ich komme mit Pferdeschwanz?”

Die Zeit

7. Dezember 2022

https://archive.md/c4ZVK

Merkel: Das setzt aber voraus, auch zu sagen, was genau die Alternativen damals waren. Die 2008 diskutierte Einleitung eines Nato-Beitritts der Ukraine und Georgiens hielt ich für falsch. Weder brachten die Länder die nötigen Voraussetzungen dafür mit, noch war zu Ende gedacht, welche Folgen ein solcher Beschluss gehabt hätte, sowohl mit Blick auf Russlands Handeln gegen Georgien und die Ukraine als auch auf die Nato und ihre Beistandsregeln. Und das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben. Anm. d. Red.: Unter dem Minsker Abkommen versteht man eine Reihe von Vereinbarungen für die selbst ernannten Republiken Donezk und Luhansk, die sich unter russischem Einfluss von der Ukraine losgesagt hatten. Ziel war, über einen Waffenstillstand Zeit zu gewinnen, um später zu einem Frieden zwischen Russland und der Ukraine zu kommen. Sie hat diese Zeit hat auch genutzt, um stärker zu werden, wie man heute sieht.

(Translated): Merkel: But that requires saying what exactly the alternatives were at the time. I thought the idea of ​​Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, which was discussed in 2008, was wrong. The countries did not have the necessary prerequisites for this, nor had the consequences of such a decision been fully considered, both with regard to Russia’s actions against Georgia and Ukraine and to NATO and its mutual assistance rules. And the Minsk Agreement in 2014 was an attempt to give Ukraine time. Editor’s note: The Minsk Agreement is a series of agreements for the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, which had broken away from Ukraine under Russian influence. The aim was to gain time through a ceasefire in order to later achieve peace between Russia and Ukraine. It also used this time to become stronger, as we can see today.

gulag

modern day Russia

Doesn’t understand the difference between a Russian legal term (SMO) and a general military strategy

You seem severely confused. Are you ok?

occupying large parts of Russia

Good one lol

Western chauvinism at display

I hope you read the fine print of your article

Along with the usual mix of government mismanagement and corruption are two unexpected and devastating events: the war in Ukraine, which has sent prices of grain and oil soaring, and the U.S. Federal Reserve’s decision to raise interest rates 10 times in a row, the latest this month. That has made variable rate loans to countries suddenly much more expensive.

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in a statement to the AP, disputed the notion that China is an unforgiving lender and echoed previous statements putting the blame on the Federal Reserve. It said that if it is to accede to IMF and World Bank demands to forgive a portion of its loans, so should those multilateral lenders, which it views as U.S. proxies

…

China argues it has offered relief in the form of extended loan maturities and emergency loans, and as the biggest contributor to a program to temporarily suspend interest payments during the coronavirus pandemic. It also says it has forgiven 23 no-interest loans to African countries, though AidData’s Parks said such loans are mostly from two decades ago and amount to less than 5% of the total it has lent.

…

In high-level talks in Washington last month, China was considering dropping its demand that the IMF and World Bank forgive loans if the two lenders would make commitments to offer grants and other help to troubled countries, according to various news reports.

…

On this point, experts who have studied the issue in detail have sided with Beijing. Chinese lending has come from dozens of banks on the mainland and is far too haphazard and sloppy to be coordinated from the top.

Some poor countries struggling to repay China now find themselves stuck in a kind of loan limbo: China won’t budge in taking losses, and the IMF won’t offer low-interest loans if the money is just going to pay interest on Chinese debt.

Basically Bejing is asked to swallow the debt when Washington increases interest rates. Its also a lot more unreasonable when private and multilateral debts is a much larger part of Africa’s debt pie than bilateral debt with China is

I think it is a mistake to assume this article reflects the position of the New York Times because they chose to run it.

It may not reflect the position of the NYT, but does reflect their views in some regard. You don’t think they’d publish a guest essay portraying Stalin in any light other then a negative one?

You may as well be right. Thinking about how it’s a privately run business, It’s definitely within the realm of possibility and how it’s done in practice. It requires less time/ressources to have your journalists follow guidelines and punish them if they are not within guidlines. Reading the damn thing and haveing a lengthy approval process costs money after all…

What I’m saying is that while this is an opinion piece, it had to pass an editorial board. Since this piece obv got publish, it means that it reflects the views of the board in some regard

Someone drew some lines on a map 200 years ago when the concept of countries was invented. An entire culture should now be assimilated to match the lines on the map. Israel must be a legitimate country too, someone drew some lines on a map. The British playbook strikes again.

Ok thanks, at least I now understand your (anarchist?) perspective. Generally I’m with you with abolishing borders, but don’t see it realistically happening over night and the entire world at once. A socialist state needs to exists to protect it’s people from imperial forces. Also I’m going to disregard you call for the ETIM to have their own state (i.e. East Turkistan) with borders.

In the video linked previously right, right after the camp tour

Give me a timestamp. Not gonna watch BE kissing the imperial boot for one hour.

The most amount of mosques according to Google is indonesia. Source for your claim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mosques_in_China

“In of 2014 there were 39,135 mosques in China,[1][2] in 2009 an estimated 25,000 of these were in Xinjiang, a north-west autonomous region, having a high density of one mosque per 500 Muslims.[3]”

The articles about the mosque architectures being forcefully changed to be more “Chinese” against the will of the population does not support your claim.

The article handselected and made “An analysis of 2,312 mosques once featuring Islamic architecture shows that three-quarters have been modified or destroyed since 2018.” “Modified” being an obtuse way of saying “renovation”, so that the roof doesnt collapse and kills the worshipers. So not only do they hand sample a small amount of the total amount of mosques, they create an obtuse category of “modification” and destruction. I wonder why they don’t give the raw number of destroyed mosques if they seem to have the data?

I’m sure there was some seperatism.

If you’re at all interested at the context:

https://www.qiaocollective.com/education/xinjiang

The extent of terrorist violence in China during this period is not well known in the West. There were many attacks between 1990 and 2016 and not all of the information is yet available. A compilation of publicly-known attacks has been collected here. Some high-profile attacks are as follows:

➤ 2009 July 5 – The Urumqi Riots, 197 killed, 1700 wounded. Chinese investigations allege that the riots were enflamed by foreign entities such as the WUC to undermine regional stability and unity. As an aside, due to Facebook’s failure to provide information to the Chinese government following the attacks, Western social media was banned from China.

➤ 2013 October 28 – Tiananmen Attack, 5 killed, 40 wounded. Usmen Hasan, along with his mother and wife, drives a jeep through a crowd at Beijing’s Tiananmen Square before setting the vehicle on fire. Authorities find “extremist religious content” and a jihadi flag in the remains of the vehicle.

➤ 2014 March 1 – Kunming Train Station Attack, 31 killed, 141 wounded. Eight attackers burst into the city’s rail station, stabbing people at random before police arrive at the scene. Officials identify the leader of the group as Abdurehim Kurban, and state that insignias and flags worn by the attackers point to political involvement as “East Turkestan” separatists. The international community, including U.S. State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki, joins China in denouncing the attack as an act of terrorism.

➤ 2014 May 22 – Urumqi Attack, 39 killed and 94 injured as attackers drive two cars into a crowded marketplace and throw explosives towards surrounding buildings.

➤ 2014 July 30 – Assassination of Imam Juma Tahir at the Id Kah Mosque after morning prayers. Juma Tahir was the practicing imam of Id Kah, China

Which was subsequently exaggerated and hijacked as Imperalists to do push whatever agenda they want.

You keep using the term imperialist, it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

The funniest part is how China literally did it together with America.

Yeah America inciting the terrorist attacks, and when China doesn’t invade another country, they point the finger and say “genocide” and had to backtrack to “cultural genocide” because all evidence is paper thin. China not being able to prove a negative is in a losing position, especially against a hegemon