China to provide 5 mln yuan worth of humanitarian assistance to Ukraine(reuters.com)
reuters.com
China to provide 5 mln yuan worth of humanitarian assistance to Ukraine
https://www.reuters.com/world/china-provide-5-mln-yuan-worth-humanitarian-assistance-ukraine-2022-03-09/
143 comments
The current president of the Chinese Red Cross is currently vice-chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, and previously the Minister of Health.
Very hard to believe this is something that could happen without the CCP’s politburo approval
Very hard to believe this is something that could happen without the CCP’s politburo approval
I think there is a distinction to be made here. It seems unlikely that the politburo would bother approving such a small item as 5m yuan (Less than a million dollar. If you see this as the action of China the country, then a million dollar is basically a symbolic gesture.). However he would not have dared do it if he thought it would have landed him consequences. He made the call that the CCP would let him get away with this.
This might or might not have been a line item in a meeting for the politburo, but it would have come across their desk in one way or another. Maybe in a form of item in a list for a bigger strategy (authorize those 10000 organizations to support Ukraine etc.). The foreign ministry spokeman is the one who announced it after all
> The foreign ministry spokeman is the one who announced it after all
Oh, I missed that part. Guess I was wrong.
Oh, I missed that part. Guess I was wrong.
I don't think you understand how detail oriented they are. Even things as small as international student nights get cancelled at Chinese universities because any form of organization might lead to potential opposition. They simply try to oppose any form of organizing.
Same here. China won't even allow local western politicians to meet with a local Taiwenese politician (yes they have such influence, Amsterdam Politicians are not allowed to be on photo with Taiwenese politicians). 100% sure they care about the actions of such a prestigious institute as the Chinese Red cross.
Same here. China won't even allow local western politicians to meet with a local Taiwenese politician (yes they have such influence, Amsterdam Politicians are not allowed to be on photo with Taiwenese politicians). 100% sure they care about the actions of such a prestigious institute as the Chinese Red cross.
That reinforces the parent's point. If such a large gesture was approved, then it reflects the position of "China". Alternatively, it reflects that a single official thinks they can get away with it, which means someone in China thinks "China" is not against it.
Or the unfortunate larger truth, that China doesn't care.
Maybe they'll give the speeches. Lament the tragic loss of human life. Say whatever polite society expects them to say. But they really don't care when it comes down to it.
Someone tried to tell me that a long time ago about a potential war between Iran and Israel. China would make the speeches. Show up at all the meetings. But they really wouldn't care.
It wouldn't be a cultural misunderstanding leading it to appear to us that they don't care.
It wouldn't be a feigned indifference they act out to gain some negotiating advantage in some other area.
They Truly. Wouldn't. Care.
They may participate in memorial ceremonies. Perhaps contribute to the reconstruction of affected nations. But for the most part, yeah, they'll just keep marching off to Africa and extracting resources to build China.
In essence, maybe they're like us in the West, but with less pretense.
Maybe they'll give the speeches. Lament the tragic loss of human life. Say whatever polite society expects them to say. But they really don't care when it comes down to it.
Someone tried to tell me that a long time ago about a potential war between Iran and Israel. China would make the speeches. Show up at all the meetings. But they really wouldn't care.
It wouldn't be a cultural misunderstanding leading it to appear to us that they don't care.
It wouldn't be a feigned indifference they act out to gain some negotiating advantage in some other area.
They Truly. Wouldn't. Care.
They may participate in memorial ceremonies. Perhaps contribute to the reconstruction of affected nations. But for the most part, yeah, they'll just keep marching off to Africa and extracting resources to build China.
In essence, maybe they're like us in the West, but with less pretense.
I commented this multiple times here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30597778)
People think because China and Russia are both opposed to the USA, then they must be friends. They are not. Especially not if Russia tries to revive the Soviet Union as a concept which hurts China's independence worse than US-type globalism.
People think because China and Russia are both opposed to the USA, then they must be friends. They are not. Especially not if Russia tries to revive the Soviet Union as a concept which hurts China's independence worse than US-type globalism.
> I know the title is the title on the actual article, but it's the Chinese Red Cross, not China itself. National Red Cross Societies are independent of the country's government.
The Chinese government does not tolerate independent power centers. Civil society organizations are either tiny or work extremely closely with the Party-State. The same is true of private companies. If it’s a big company it follows government directives.
The Chinese government does not tolerate independent power centers. Civil society organizations are either tiny or work extremely closely with the Party-State. The same is true of private companies. If it’s a big company it follows government directives.
Is it possible for any large organisation in China to be truly independent from the CCP? I have my severe doubts.
Yeah it seems that CCP is doing this to add a layer of abstraction and have plausible deniability with their Russian allies perhaps
There's no such thing as "plausible deniability" in those things and Russia knows full well China's views on the war.
"Russia knows full well China's views on the war."
Do we really know them? We know what china has publicly announced.
Do we really know them? We know what china has publicly announced.
Sure, we know what China has publicly announced. The Russian government is not we, the general public.
I mean, do we know what the head of the CP thinks of the war?
Officially they critizice it, but stand by russia anyway. Internally they might be cheering, or really frowning.
Officially they critizice it, but stand by russia anyway. Internally they might be cheering, or really frowning.
> have plausible deniability with their Russian allies perhaps
Russia is China's biggest permanent enemy, with its size and ambitions, together with the fact that it is the only foreign country that still occupy lands traditionally owned by China, you'd need a bullet in the brain to believe that Russia is China's ally. It is the single largest threat to China's security & future stability.
Seeing the poor performance of Russia troops in the last two weeks offered huge comfort to many Chinese like myself - a weak Russia & an incapable Russian armed forces is a solid foundation of the peace of our generation.
Russia is China's biggest permanent enemy, with its size and ambitions, together with the fact that it is the only foreign country that still occupy lands traditionally owned by China, you'd need a bullet in the brain to believe that Russia is China's ally. It is the single largest threat to China's security & future stability.
Seeing the poor performance of Russia troops in the last two weeks offered huge comfort to many Chinese like myself - a weak Russia & an incapable Russian armed forces is a solid foundation of the peace of our generation.
> a weak Russia & an incapable Russian armed forces is a solid foundation of the peace of our generation.
> of the peace of our generation.
Thanks, got a laugh from that.
> of the peace of our generation.
Thanks, got a laugh from that.
or as tsar Putin says "special military peacekeeping operation in Ukraine" goes as planned.
Sadly - you missed the joke. My comment wasn't about Russia.
Allies tend to be politically convinent, not BFFs forever.
Enemy it may be but China is a good hedge against sanctions where Russia can still trade without Swift.
[deleted]
No disrespect but, isn't CCP the biggest enemy of Chinese as a people in the long run. I mean even if Russia occupies China, what can it do that CCP hasn't already done.
You have 2 facts: 1. the CCP made average Chinese citizens 30x richer in 30 years. 2. somehow everybody in the West thinks CCP is bad and believes Chinese people hate their government.
These 2 facts don't match, and you should think why, maybe some propaganda is at work.
Edit: crap I forgot I'm green, which looks so bad when I make this kind of arguments.
These 2 facts don't match, and you should think why, maybe some propaganda is at work.
Edit: crap I forgot I'm green, which looks so bad when I make this kind of arguments.
As the saying goes the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Third Reich (Nazi Germany) and Soviet Union were also allies before Operation Barbarossa.
The party controls China’s Red Cross. We were highly encouraged to donate during certain events (eg the wenchuan earthquake), to the point that it didn’t really feel optional. And their is a lot of corruption in the Chinese Red Cross that is wrapped around party officials (eg the Guo Meimei incident during the just mentioned earthquake).
It is $700,000, which in 2022 is not really a significant amount of money. Why the last time I spent that much on something it didn't make the news? I am not China?
> Why the last time I spent that much on something it didn't make the news?
Humblebrag much?
And no, you're not China, whose government is actively supporting Russia; which means that any humanitarian support flowing from China to Ukraine is news.
Humblebrag much?
And no, you're not China, whose government is actively supporting Russia; which means that any humanitarian support flowing from China to Ukraine is news.
I'm a little surprise that this is even a news. The amount is toot small, not proportional though.
The invasion of Russia put China in a dilemma that China can not condemn Russia but on the other hand it does not support the invasion. There are a few reasons:
1.Ukraine has a very friendly relation with China . Not only this government but also earlier ones before the war (Now it might be different). Probably because Ukraine is not ideological. It's only hostile to Russia but not China as it's a "Regime". As a comparison there's another democratic country did the other way
2.The invasion is against China's historic position in UN so not condemning Russia is already a embarrassment.
3.The invasion is against China's interest.
Just a some facts: * The trade and exchange of student between 2 countries are quite significant. * The first negotiation between Russia and Ukraine was after a online meeting between Xi and Putin, along with phone call between Foreign ministers of China and Ukraine. There's a speculation but as history shows China like to do things quietly because It's often a more effective way.
The invasion of Russia put China in a dilemma that China can not condemn Russia but on the other hand it does not support the invasion. There are a few reasons:
1.Ukraine has a very friendly relation with China . Not only this government but also earlier ones before the war (Now it might be different). Probably because Ukraine is not ideological. It's only hostile to Russia but not China as it's a "Regime". As a comparison there's another democratic country did the other way
2.The invasion is against China's historic position in UN so not condemning Russia is already a embarrassment.
3.The invasion is against China's interest.
Just a some facts: * The trade and exchange of student between 2 countries are quite significant. * The first negotiation between Russia and Ukraine was after a online meeting between Xi and Putin, along with phone call between Foreign ministers of China and Ukraine. There's a speculation but as history shows China like to do things quietly because It's often a more effective way.
5 million RMB is only 800k USD. For comparison, a livestream star in China can sell $2 billion worth of goods in a day. China has over 1 billion people. The country is donating what is amount to 1 FANG employee's annual salary. This amount is like giving a penny just to appear neutral to both sides. They are donating to buy the argument that they care.
Update: For those still unconvinced, a neighboring economy with equivalent to 5% of China's GDP donated 27 tons of medical supplies. Anyone with knowledge want to calculate the market value of each ton of medical supply?
Update: For those still unconvinced, a neighboring economy with equivalent to 5% of China's GDP donated 27 tons of medical supplies. Anyone with knowledge want to calculate the market value of each ton of medical supply?
FANG salaries are now $800k a year in the US?! That sounds insane from my European perspective. Or are we talking management level?
$200K is entry level for Google in the Bay Area. $800K is probably 95th. percentile for individual contributors but you don’t have to be management to hit that. It is rare.
I am curious.
How does entry level for Google in Europe looks like? Both in UK and non-UK countries?
How does entry level for Google in Europe looks like? Both in UK and non-UK countries?
Zurich. L3 is $195K (entry level), L5 $315K, L6 $400,000.
Looks like the bottom is similar to Mountain View and higher levels are lower for Google.
https://www.levels.fyi/comp.html?track=Software%20Engineer&c...
Looks like the bottom is similar to Mountain View and higher levels are lower for Google.
https://www.levels.fyi/comp.html?track=Software%20Engineer&c...
Definitely management, but quite possibly middle-management, not that high.
Depends on how you count the year 3 personal jet
What? Is it a joke or an actual thing?
A sample point: 5 million RMB is worth of an 80m² apartment in Shanghai, but many ordinary Chinese need to pay a 10~30 yr mortgage. Average salaries are not that high in China.
Real estate is crazier in China than in the USA when you compare housing costs to local salaries, or even when you compare Chinese housing costs to American salaries. I relocated from Beijing back to Seattle so I could buy a house.
To bring perspective, Bosch Germany recently donated a million euros (1.1 mil USD) to the red cross and opened its surrounding-country offices as refugee shelters (Stefan Hartung interview).
But its a very welcome donation by CRC considering the political move.
But its a very welcome donation by CRC considering the political move.
> The country is donating what is amount to 1 FANG employee's annual salary.
>70% of employees at FAANG make less than $800k per year.
>70% of employees at FAANG make less than $800k per year.
30% make more than 800k???
With this year's crazy tech stock appreciation, I would hope they would be making somewhere close to this from RSU.
But okay, 2 FANG employees :)
But okay, 2 FANG employees :)
I guess they should donate weapons instead, because missiles are always expensive than blankets for refuges.
So how much money did you donate? Was it enough compared to your income?
Definitely more than you? Stupid questions get stupid answers.
By the way, when China used to have disasters, international communities use to donate 10x that amount. Some food for thought.
By the way, when China used to have disasters, international communities use to donate 10x that amount. Some food for thought.
It's not a stupid question. When you judge others about how much they donate, do you hold yourself to the same standard?
I donated 1 month of my paycheck to Ukraine. And notice how I'm not complaining that anyone donated too little. I think Ukraine can use any help they can get. And if the Chinese Red Cross donates whatever, that is great.
If you donated a lot, then I agree that you're allowed to judge others. But as long as you don't hold yourself to your own standard, I suggest you look in the mirror first.
I donated 1 month of my paycheck to Ukraine. And notice how I'm not complaining that anyone donated too little. I think Ukraine can use any help they can get. And if the Chinese Red Cross donates whatever, that is great.
If you donated a lot, then I agree that you're allowed to judge others. But as long as you don't hold yourself to your own standard, I suggest you look in the mirror first.
It is a stupid question. You are comparing the nominal value of an individual donation vs. a country. As my original comment stated, if you compare country to country, its the least amount they can give. The fact you can't understand scale isn't my problem. And perhaps develop some critical thinking skills instead of telling others to buy a mirror.
Here's the definition for you (just in case): Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.
What you are effective saying is that I should keep my mouth shut because any help they can get we should be grateful. Despite the fact, their government knew of this attack even before and support the attack on Ukraine by actively spreading Russian propaganda saying the Ukrainians deserve it.
As for saying I can't judge the motivations of the Chinese government until I donate as much as them is just.. ¯\(°_o)/¯ ?! What kind of logic is that? Pay-to-judge? What (https://i.imgur.com/lB5wmMp.png)?! Oh man.. This is truly the first head scratcher I have ever encountered here.
Here's the definition for you (just in case): Critical thinking is the analysis of available facts, evidence, observations, and arguments to form a judgment.
What you are effective saying is that I should keep my mouth shut because any help they can get we should be grateful. Despite the fact, their government knew of this attack even before and support the attack on Ukraine by actively spreading Russian propaganda saying the Ukrainians deserve it.
As for saying I can't judge the motivations of the Chinese government until I donate as much as them is just.. ¯\(°_o)/¯ ?! What kind of logic is that? Pay-to-judge? What (https://i.imgur.com/lB5wmMp.png)?! Oh man.. This is truly the first head scratcher I have ever encountered here.
Ok, so you did jack shit yourself, but then complain that others are doing too little.
I guess complaining on a forum is easier than actually doing something to help people.
I guess complaining on a forum is easier than actually doing something to help people.
No.. I donated like you. What are you talking about man? I don't even know what you are going on about anymore. It seems like you are having a hissy fit. You do you. Let's end this conversation. Enjoy your day, I think you have been on the internet for too long.
Truly the least China can do, given the massive financial support they are providing to Putin to facilitate his war effort.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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...
And it’s not even expensive, just $800k and they get a headline on Reuters.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
It feels weird even calling this 'an incident'. It's not like they invaded by mistake
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.
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.
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.
He's been acting strangely for a few months now, and is not the same cool, strategic Putin of old. So yeah, any attempt to gauge his state of mind is going to be that much less accurate.
That's why the West has refused to impose no-fly zones, and why America refused to allow Poland to play pass-the-mig-29 via Rammstein. There must be no perceived direct American military involvement. This has to look like Russia digging her own grave if there's ever to be a hope of him being quietly retired.
That's why the West has refused to impose no-fly zones, and why America refused to allow Poland to play pass-the-mig-29 via Rammstein. There must be no perceived direct American military involvement. This has to look like Russia digging her own grave if there's ever to be a hope of him being quietly retired.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is not money, it is products needed for refuges.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
China in general is concerned with trade.
> 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.
How do we know which side those people are on?
Either way, fortunately the world doesn't function by 51% majority vote.
US wouldn’t join Chinese sanctions either.
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.
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.
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).
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...
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
https://fortune.com/2022/03/02/china-civilians-harm-russia-i...
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.
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.
This is news for anyone living in Taiwan.
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?
> 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...
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...
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.
“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
Warmongering indeed. /s
Followed by “We do not promise to renounce the use of force and reserve the option to use all necessary measures”
“… against external military intervention”. That’s a pretty crucial detail you’ve left out.
The West must really have a stranglehold on the message, because I've searched and searched for that complete quote, and the only result that comes up is this very comment that you've made.[1]
> "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."
According to their words, China strives for peaceful unification, but there's little chance that can be achieved. Taiwanese people overwhelmingly reject unification, only 7.4% of the population prefer unification now or anytime in the future. The predominant preferences are 'status quo' and 'status quo but move toward independence'.[2] A vanishingly tiny minority (2.8%) identify themselves as Chinese, and they really are: Boomer Chinese refugees that fled to Taiwan after they lost the civil war. In decades past they were more influential as they essentially were a single-party occupational government thrust onto a people that didn't speak Chinese and hadn't been under "Chinese" (neither ROC nor PRC) governance since the Qing Dynasty. But as they die off, the vast, and growing, majority (62.3%) identify as Taiwanese, not Chinese, not both, just Taiwanese.[3]
> "But if separatist forces for 'Taiwan independence' provoke us, force our hand or even cross the red line, we will be compelled to take resolute measures."
That huge majority would most likely vote for independence in a referendum, except for the threat of invasion. The Chinese propaganda quoted above would have you believe that "separatist forces" are some radical minority, or outside agitators, but in fact they are they overwhelming majority of Taiwanese. They begrudgingly choose to maintain the status quo and continue to work slowly towards independence by forming stronger ties with other countries, asserting national identity, and decoupling their economy from China, rather than immediately declaring independence, because that would cross the "red line" and trigger "resolute measures." Do you sincerely believe that the Chinese "resolute measures" are not war? This isn't just quoting Western propaganda. I live here and talk to people every day. Practically no one likes China or wants to unify with then. The 'status quo' people I meet typically have two reasons: they enjoy the freedom of living in a liberal democracy and fear they will lose it if they insist, so it's better to quietly enjoy it, OR, they have economic interests in maintaining the status quo. That is, they are in business that benefits from cheap Chinese labor, or they sell into the massive Chinese market. I've never met anyone that didn't think the "resolute measures" were anything short of launching missiles.
> 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.
This is nothing more than orientalism. Chinese are people, like other people, not a mythical enlightened race entirely different from everyone else on the planet. They commit war and conquer territory just like anyone else. You can call anything "internal" by fluffing up a story about inalienable, historical rights to it. In fact, their claims to Taiwan are not very compelling. The only time Taiwan and China were unified was for ~4 years after Japanese surrender during the civil war, or under the Qing. The Chinese themselves considered the Qing to be a foreign occupation of Tatars, so you could say that Taiwan and China were co-occupied. Before the Qing administered the coastal areas, a Ming renegade established a kingdom that ruled present-day Tainan for 20 years. He had fled the Mainland after the fall of the Ming to the Qing, and hope to restore the Ming (a weird echo of history with today's PRC corresponding to Qing and ROC to Ming). Before any Chinese claimed anything on the island, the Dutch and the Spanish ruled Formosa. Before them, aboriginals had been here for god knows how long, and still are.
The fact is, Taiwan is an important strategic possession for China to project its power, it's an important buffer for Japan (with who the Chinese have shared a millennium of conflict, regardless of ideology or government), and they'll make up whatever historical justification they can to support their claim. It's no better than Russian claims of protecting ethnic Russians in every country in Eastern Europe, or German claims to Sudetenland.
[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22We+do+not+promise+to+reno...
[2]: https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963
[3]: https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7800&id=6961
> "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."
According to their words, China strives for peaceful unification, but there's little chance that can be achieved. Taiwanese people overwhelmingly reject unification, only 7.4% of the population prefer unification now or anytime in the future. The predominant preferences are 'status quo' and 'status quo but move toward independence'.[2] A vanishingly tiny minority (2.8%) identify themselves as Chinese, and they really are: Boomer Chinese refugees that fled to Taiwan after they lost the civil war. In decades past they were more influential as they essentially were a single-party occupational government thrust onto a people that didn't speak Chinese and hadn't been under "Chinese" (neither ROC nor PRC) governance since the Qing Dynasty. But as they die off, the vast, and growing, majority (62.3%) identify as Taiwanese, not Chinese, not both, just Taiwanese.[3]
> "But if separatist forces for 'Taiwan independence' provoke us, force our hand or even cross the red line, we will be compelled to take resolute measures."
That huge majority would most likely vote for independence in a referendum, except for the threat of invasion. The Chinese propaganda quoted above would have you believe that "separatist forces" are some radical minority, or outside agitators, but in fact they are they overwhelming majority of Taiwanese. They begrudgingly choose to maintain the status quo and continue to work slowly towards independence by forming stronger ties with other countries, asserting national identity, and decoupling their economy from China, rather than immediately declaring independence, because that would cross the "red line" and trigger "resolute measures." Do you sincerely believe that the Chinese "resolute measures" are not war? This isn't just quoting Western propaganda. I live here and talk to people every day. Practically no one likes China or wants to unify with then. The 'status quo' people I meet typically have two reasons: they enjoy the freedom of living in a liberal democracy and fear they will lose it if they insist, so it's better to quietly enjoy it, OR, they have economic interests in maintaining the status quo. That is, they are in business that benefits from cheap Chinese labor, or they sell into the massive Chinese market. I've never met anyone that didn't think the "resolute measures" were anything short of launching missiles.
> 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.
This is nothing more than orientalism. Chinese are people, like other people, not a mythical enlightened race entirely different from everyone else on the planet. They commit war and conquer territory just like anyone else. You can call anything "internal" by fluffing up a story about inalienable, historical rights to it. In fact, their claims to Taiwan are not very compelling. The only time Taiwan and China were unified was for ~4 years after Japanese surrender during the civil war, or under the Qing. The Chinese themselves considered the Qing to be a foreign occupation of Tatars, so you could say that Taiwan and China were co-occupied. Before the Qing administered the coastal areas, a Ming renegade established a kingdom that ruled present-day Tainan for 20 years. He had fled the Mainland after the fall of the Ming to the Qing, and hope to restore the Ming (a weird echo of history with today's PRC corresponding to Qing and ROC to Ming). Before any Chinese claimed anything on the island, the Dutch and the Spanish ruled Formosa. Before them, aboriginals had been here for god knows how long, and still are.
The fact is, Taiwan is an important strategic possession for China to project its power, it's an important buffer for Japan (with who the Chinese have shared a millennium of conflict, regardless of ideology or government), and they'll make up whatever historical justification they can to support their claim. It's no better than Russian claims of protecting ethnic Russians in every country in Eastern Europe, or German claims to Sudetenland.
[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22We+do+not+promise+to+reno...
[2]: https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7801&id=6963
[3]: https://esc.nccu.edu.tw/PageDoc/Detail?fid=7800&id=6961
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?
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.
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.
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.
No - he said he would use force against a military intervention by another state. Followed by repeating that this won’t be used against Taiwan citizens.
So, who left that detail out - you, or the medium you trusted?
So, who left that detail out - you, or the medium you trusted?
Well, I hope you're right, and as soon as the Taiwanese figure out that they've been brainwashed by US propaganda, they'll surely hold an independence referendum on the next election and China will congratulate them on their new statehood.
> 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-...
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-...
> 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.
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.
PRC had the legal right to enforce NSL in HK if city failed to do so herself, especially if lack of NSL threatened PRC security. Similarly PRC has legal right (anti secession law) to restart civil war with TW if she moves towards secession, which would threaten PRC security. Clearly PRC have reason to question current TW developments with Tsai not reaffirming 92 consensus.
One country can’t just unilaterally give itself a legal right to invade another. That’s just their policy.
TW isn't recognized as a sovereign country by anyone who can realistically intervene, so yes PRC can unilaterally and legally under UN framework decide to reunify with TW by restarting Chinese civil war that has never concluded via armstice/treaty - it won't be an invasion or annexation legally.
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.
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.
This alone, when compared with your assumptions, shows the rift between reality and western media rhetorics.
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”.
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”.
Err.. daily trespassing airspace to measure their response time.
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.
You already forgot what happened in Hong Kong?
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...
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...
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.
The only reason HK wasn't Chinese for 150 years, was that the British very much did use offensive military action to take it from China.
That would be the actual example of using offensive military action to take over other countries territories, but it was Colonial Britain doing it, taking away territories from China.
To get that territory back China did not invade HK with an military offensive, so you using HK as an example for such a thing happening is just weird and completely opposite to what actually happened with HK.
Adding some pointless fluff about "enslavement, torture, human rights" and all the usual memes does not detract from that point, it's just moving the goalpost, it's trying to evoke emotions over a situation that international law wise is quite unspectacular.
It's also historically revisionist, as it implies British HK didn't start out as a colony very much based on enslavement and exploitation, not out of some grander ambition to "bring human rights and democracy!" to the people of HK.
That would be the actual example of using offensive military action to take over other countries territories, but it was Colonial Britain doing it, taking away territories from China.
To get that territory back China did not invade HK with an military offensive, so you using HK as an example for such a thing happening is just weird and completely opposite to what actually happened with HK.
Adding some pointless fluff about "enslavement, torture, human rights" and all the usual memes does not detract from that point, it's just moving the goalpost, it's trying to evoke emotions over a situation that international law wise is quite unspectacular.
It's also historically revisionist, as it implies British HK didn't start out as a colony very much based on enslavement and exploitation, not out of some grander ambition to "bring human rights and democracy!" to the people of HK.
The communists kept HK around to facilitate some trade with the west as it closed off from the world (otherwise they could have easily “liberated” it in the late 60s). With the opening of China by the 80s, a UK ruled HK didn’t make sense to the PRC anymore.
HK never had a legitimate claim to independence being a colony. Taiwan is a completely different case since it is ruled by locals (Chinese) rather than some colonial overlords.
HK never had a legitimate claim to independence being a colony. Taiwan is a completely different case since it is ruled by locals (Chinese) rather than some colonial overlords.
Very well put. History is always used as justification, because then its no longer a proaction, but a reaction - Its victimhood.
Revocation of all human rights? You aren’t mistaking China and North Korea, are you?
Also, we don’t need to look 150 years back. It’s enough to look at current statistics from American penitentiary system to notice continued race-based mass oppression, and to some extent (fortunately slowly winding down) literal slavery in private prisons.
Also, we don’t need to look 150 years back. It’s enough to look at current statistics from American penitentiary system to notice continued race-based mass oppression, and to some extent (fortunately slowly winding down) literal slavery in private prisons.
This is about $1M right? A few orders of magnitude below what others are providing while feeding the boot that stomps on the humans in need of said humanitatian assistance. Hey it's a start but China the world is watching you
That is not even a start, the amount is adding insult to injury. We are talking about a (self-proclaimed) economic superpower, and not a local bakery chain in Beijing.
China is still considered a developing country and that is pretty much true for a vast amount of Chinese people. There are some exceptions already, but there is merit to the classification.
It doesn't matter how you want to call it but compare with GDP vs $1m donation and see if it's a joke or an effort.
The Netherlands alone collected over 100 million euros this week.
5000x as much per person.
5000x as much per person.
Netherlands donations would be closer to 9000 times Chinese donations per capita.
Netherlands donated more than 100 million. China is 1,4 billion people, not 1 billion and the donated amount is 800 k. Not 1 million. Netherlands is 17,3 million people, not 20 million.
Additionally, Netherlands donated euros, not dollars.
--
If you take into consideration that Ukraine was a "one road one belt" partner and had a nuclear protection agreement with China. In return, Ukraine also delivered a lot of food/wheat.
Then you can see that any notion of China as a strong ally is too ridiculous to even consider.
Netherlands donated more than 100 million. China is 1,4 billion people, not 1 billion and the donated amount is 800 k. Not 1 million. Netherlands is 17,3 million people, not 20 million.
Additionally, Netherlands donated euros, not dollars.
--
If you take into consideration that Ukraine was a "one road one belt" partner and had a nuclear protection agreement with China. In return, Ukraine also delivered a lot of food/wheat.
Then you can see that any notion of China as a strong ally is too ridiculous to even consider.
First sentence in the short article:
“worth 5 million yuan ($791,540)”
“worth 5 million yuan ($791,540)”
Sorry to disappoint you guys but the Chinese Red Cross is just another Chinese government department, more specifically, according to Chinese domestic laws, it is a Chinese government department with Sub-Provincial (Ministerial) level.
It is current President is Chen Zhu who was China's Minister of Health, he is also a current vice-chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, which according to the wikipedia is "the highest organ of state power and the legislature of China". Chinese Red Cross's current honorary President is Wang Qishan, the vice President of China & the right hand man of Xi.
It is current President is Chen Zhu who was China's Minister of Health, he is also a current vice-chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, which according to the wikipedia is "the highest organ of state power and the legislature of China". Chinese Red Cross's current honorary President is Wang Qishan, the vice President of China & the right hand man of Xi.
Donate to the UK Red Cross Ukraine appeal here:
https://donate.redcross.org.uk/appeal/ukraine-crisis-appeal
https://donate.redcross.org.uk/appeal/ukraine-crisis-appeal
You can also donate directly to Ukrainian National Bank which has an account for supporting armed forces of Ukraine:
https://bank.gov.ua/en/about/support-the-armed-forces
https://bank.gov.ua/en/about/support-the-armed-forces
Why is this news?
The Netherlands with ~ 20 million people donated over 100 million in 1 donation this week.
That's more than 100 x more in absolute numbers and china has over 1 billion people.
Anyone wants to compare relative difference per capita? Since this is not even newsworthy in absolute numbers.
Probably it's a record low in relative numbers.
The Netherlands with ~ 20 million people donated over 100 million in 1 donation this week.
That's more than 100 x more in absolute numbers and china has over 1 billion people.
Anyone wants to compare relative difference per capita? Since this is not even newsworthy in absolute numbers.
Probably it's a record low in relative numbers.
It's a symbolic gesture which sends a geopolitical message.
Now, we all get to speculate about the message.
Most of the speculation here is wrong. Russia invaded Ukraine under the pretext of a humanitarian mission and if you read Russian media, Russia is distributing food and aid in Ukraine. Everywhere, but especially Russia and China, a lot of effort goes into keeping up appearances.
I think the key question is how will this be reported by China. It could be pro-Russia (China is helping Russia free Ukraine), neutral (China is providing humanitarian aid in the middle of a conflict), pro-US (China is helping Ukraine against Russia), or just about anything else.
I'm keeping my eye on People's Online Daily. Articles like this one:
http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0309/c90000-9968524.html
(Supporting EU efforts in Ukraine)
Or this one:
http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0309/c90000-9968563.html
(Speculating US bioweapons research in Ukraine)
Now, we all get to speculate about the message.
Most of the speculation here is wrong. Russia invaded Ukraine under the pretext of a humanitarian mission and if you read Russian media, Russia is distributing food and aid in Ukraine. Everywhere, but especially Russia and China, a lot of effort goes into keeping up appearances.
I think the key question is how will this be reported by China. It could be pro-Russia (China is helping Russia free Ukraine), neutral (China is providing humanitarian aid in the middle of a conflict), pro-US (China is helping Ukraine against Russia), or just about anything else.
I'm keeping my eye on People's Online Daily. Articles like this one:
http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0309/c90000-9968524.html
(Supporting EU efforts in Ukraine)
Or this one:
http://en.people.cn/n3/2022/0309/c90000-9968563.html
(Speculating US bioweapons research in Ukraine)
Yes, why would this "news" be upvoted. That amount is so low, it is actually insulting.
China has the means to end this war on short notice but it choose not to.
China has the means to end this war on short notice but it choose not to.
It's geopolitically interesting that China, a Russian ally, is choosing to donate to a Ukrainian cause. It sends a subtle message of china's stance on the war.
> Why is this news?
It’s something that happened and might interest some people. That makes it news and someone found it interesting enough to share on HN.
News items don’t have to be more meaningful than “x happened”.
In this case it’s interesting to know actions taken by China in the context of Ukraine invasion by Russia. Even if it isn’t that meaningful, it’s still a message.
It’s something that happened and might interest some people. That makes it news and someone found it interesting enough to share on HN.
News items don’t have to be more meaningful than “x happened”.
In this case it’s interesting to know actions taken by China in the context of Ukraine invasion by Russia. Even if it isn’t that meaningful, it’s still a message.
>News items don’t have to be more meaningful than “x happened”.
Yes, they do. Any news story that would be covered by the mainstream media needs to present evidence of a new or interesting phenomenon that satisfies intellectual curiosity. Do most stories about Ukraine, Russia, China or the war satisfy intellectual curiosity, or emotional needs? Do they generate intellectually stimulating conversation, or just act as a medium for the same tedious political tribalism that most political subjects tend to generate?
The bar has to be higher than "x happened" or else we'll get flooded with pedestrian nonsense, which we are every time a major mainstream topic takes over and the existing moderation safeguards fail.
Yes, they do. Any news story that would be covered by the mainstream media needs to present evidence of a new or interesting phenomenon that satisfies intellectual curiosity. Do most stories about Ukraine, Russia, China or the war satisfy intellectual curiosity, or emotional needs? Do they generate intellectually stimulating conversation, or just act as a medium for the same tedious political tribalism that most political subjects tend to generate?
The bar has to be higher than "x happened" or else we'll get flooded with pedestrian nonsense, which we are every time a major mainstream topic takes over and the existing moderation safeguards fail.
Current safeguards seem to work quite well, even for what you call pedestrian nonsense.
Even assuming this is the Chinese government providing the funds, through the Chinese Red Cross, this donation of just $800k seems to me a case of "damned by faint praise".
If it's the Chinese Red Cross independent of government, then it's a relatively generous donation for an ngo branch that is not even in the same region, perhaps thumbing their nose at the lack of Chinese govt. support.
If it's the Chinese Red Cross independent of government, then it's a relatively generous donation for an ngo branch that is not even in the same region, perhaps thumbing their nose at the lack of Chinese govt. support.
Red Cross Society of China website (in Chinese): https://www.redcross.org.cn/
You can see quite a few references to the party.
Red Cross Society of China information on IFRC: https://www.ifrc.org/national-societies-directory/red-cross-...
You can see quite a few references to the party.
Red Cross Society of China information on IFRC: https://www.ifrc.org/national-societies-directory/red-cross-...
Why is this on the front page instead of the billions of dollars that the US and Europeans are giving?
Exactly because it invokes such comparisons which would make China's donation look pretty pathetic.
And if devil can make some good it should help to condemn Russia. 5m is nothing. Not condemn and encouragement … sigh.
so $800K USD to help Ukraine for humanitarian while purchasing billions of dollars of gas etc from Russia where the sanction is occurring?
Good initiatives, helping people who are in need.
From https://www.ifrc.org/fundamental-principles
"The Movement is independent. The National Societies, while auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of their governments and subject to the laws of their respective countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with the principles of the Movement."