With the wider context of the recent deployment of “totally not space weapons but they could be used that way” I think there is more to the story
Maybe, but it’s natural countries outside the imperial core to preemptively deploy defenses and plans given the history of the imperial core. Nuclear deterrence only goes so far as we’ve seen in Pakistan and Russia; showing that you have the plans and capability to eliminate civil and military assets without resorting to nukes is especially important.
Also what is China’s involvement in Ukraine?
China is as neutral as it can be in the conflict. While shipping to Ukraine from china is expensive these days it is legal for any Ukrainian entity to order from China, with specific routes for shipping available through Poland to avoid naval problems during times where Ukraine does not have any ports under their control.
As far as direct aid, China has provided 700k USD worth of aid and offered another $1.5 million which has not been accepted by Ukraine at this time. Given Chinese tech and supplies are in Russian drones (nevermind they’re also in ukrainian drones) Ukraine and the Imperial Core views China as not doing enough by being politically neutral and have taken a stance that if you’re not 100% supporting Ukraine you’re an enemy.
Intel != Missiles. Passing intel, giving loans, even giving arms is not a direct attack from country A against country B. These games are very old, older than these nations. As you have pointed out these actions are taken on both sides, these aren’t the same as the US blowing up a Chinese fishing boat or Russia bowing up a US comms satellite or Pakistan launching missiles at an indian oil refinery and so on. One is bullshit nations do that does not consecrate a definite act of war, and the other is an actual act of war.
That said people will actually strike with the argument that their enemy was playing those games even though most of the time they were as well but it’s good when they play those games and bad when their enemy does, so goes the bullshit logic of conflict.
Maybe, but it’s natural countries outside the imperial core to preemptively deploy defenses and plans given the history of the imperial core. Nuclear deterrence only goes so far as we’ve seen in Pakistan and Russia; showing that you have the plans and capability to eliminate civil and military assets without resorting to nukes is especially important.
China is as neutral as it can be in the conflict. While shipping to Ukraine from china is expensive these days it is legal for any Ukrainian entity to order from China, with specific routes for shipping available through Poland to avoid naval problems during times where Ukraine does not have any ports under their control.
As far as direct aid, China has provided 700k USD worth of aid and offered another $1.5 million which has not been accepted by Ukraine at this time. Given Chinese tech and supplies are in Russian drones (nevermind they’re also in ukrainian drones) Ukraine and the Imperial Core views China as not doing enough by being politically neutral and have taken a stance that if you’re not 100% supporting Ukraine you’re an enemy.
Intel != Missiles. Passing intel, giving loans, even giving arms is not a direct attack from country A against country B. These games are very old, older than these nations. As you have pointed out these actions are taken on both sides, these aren’t the same as the US blowing up a Chinese fishing boat or Russia bowing up a US comms satellite or Pakistan launching missiles at an indian oil refinery and so on. One is bullshit nations do that does not consecrate a definite act of war, and the other is an actual act of war.
That said people will actually strike with the argument that their enemy was playing those games even though most of the time they were as well but it’s good when they play those games and bad when their enemy does, so goes the bullshit logic of conflict.