upvote
That's precisely the problem. You can't credibly supply both sides in a war where one party clearly is the aggressor and pretend you are neutral. You either supply nobody and then you get to play your neutrality card or you pick a side. If you supply both sides you're just a cynical war profiteer without a conscience.
reply
I don't think they're pretending to be neutral. I'm not sure they even think in those categories at all. They'll happily sell as much equipment as they can manufacture for hard cash or barter it for grain, oil or gas as long as the war is going on. They'll start considering options once there's a clear winner on the battlefield.
reply
They haven't forgotten Russias role for the century of humiliation either.

Russia is economically becoming a vassal state just like north Korea is.

reply
I think this is why it's so important to figure out a path to returning Königsberg to western control before the war runs its course. If we assume that Russia is basically disassembled and parted out, it's looking increasingly certain that China ends up in either nominal or practical control of almost all of those parts. For the most part this seems inevitable at this point, but there still seems to be a path to keep Königsberg as a western region; and an optimistic can imagine keeping St. Petersburg as well, but I don't see a path for forward action on that before Russia's collapse, and I don't really see how the west can act faster than China once the collapse begins.
reply
One should ask what do the people of Königsberg / Kaliningrad want to be.
reply
>One should ask what do the people of Königsberg / Kaliningrad want to be.

Something tells me that given a choice between the EU and Russia (under Chinese boot, at that), we'll see number in favor of EU that even Putin didn't dream of for himself.

reply
Kaliningrad is entirely ethnically Russian. Every other group has been forced out. No one wants Kaliningrad for that reason.
reply
deleted
reply
China currently cares most about the East till the natural resources.

The East because they are blockaded at sea currently, if they would invade Taiwan.

And they already have huge economical leverage there.

Russia is basically falling apart. But in a dictatorship, stuff like that is only seen sudden, when it collapses.

Putin seems to be making many of the mistakes of pre 1991.

reply
> China currently cares most about the East till the natural resources

The simplest solution would be to reboot the Siberian Republic [1] as a Chinese suzerainty. Ideally after Putin dies as part of a deal to the new ascender. Maybe together with giving them personal co-ownership in some major ventures there.

> East because they are blockaded at sea currently, if they would invade Taiwan

Siberia and Outer Mongolia remain closer and thus cheaper and more-secure sources than anything coming in over ocean, which in essence means from Australia, South America or Africa.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Republic_(1918)

reply
There's an opening through the Kuril Islands.

Russia is recently bluffing a bit there, Putin had a visit for the first time recently, I think it's China related:

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

China is already owning the area with investments and a lot of workers/projects there are already Chinese. Seems like Russia already lost control ( unofficially)

reply
Good Luck annexing Kaliningrad back, it may already be filled with nuclear warheads pointed at its neighbors
reply
>Good Luck annexing Kaliningrad back, it may already be filled with nuclear warheads pointed at its neighbors

Helped Ukraine much, did it?

reply
Russia wants to keep Kaliningrad mainly because they want to keep on being able to access the world ocean from St Petersburg (and the nearby port of Ust-Luga) and Kaliningrad helps with that.

(Controlling Denmark would help tremendously, too, which is why Moscow once asked Berlin for Denmark during or right before WWII as a response to Berlin's asking Moscow for its consent for Berlin to take control of Romania or some such.)

And yes, I believe that continuing to be able to access the world ocean from St Petersburg has helped Russia in its war with Ukraine.

BTW, "China ends up in either nominal or practical control of almost all of [Russia]" strikes me as so unlikely as to not be worth thinking about.

reply
[dead]
reply
China's behavior makes sense if they consider both Russia and Ukraine (the latter being a proxy for the west) to be enemies of some sort. Let your enemies fight each other and waste resources while you yourself profit.

The same can be said about the US <> EU/Russia in this conflict. Why bother helping Ukraine/Europe win the war if you consider them at least partly hostile? Better to let them fight your own enemy (Russia) and trade with both sides to your own advantage.

reply
I don’t think that China need even consider Ukraine an adversary, but a stronger Russian state (or one more interested in its eastern flank) is not good for China. Ukraine is simply collateral damage.
reply
The US considers Europe to be hostile?
reply
The current administration is not treating Europe as an ally. It’s pretty shameful.

But hopefully Europe becomes more independent. The US has become too unstable

reply
Yes, the US has lost it's damn mind, Trump is making destructive choices by the day, for the economy, wealth, budget deficits, inflation, relationships with our closest allies. It's been a few weeks since he threatened to invade our closest allies in Greenland and Canada, also has threatened not to help if Russia invades Europe/NATO.

About half the country can't believe what's going on, 1/4 thinks he's all great somehow, 1/4 just wants to pretend everything is ok and they don't have to pay attention.

We are living the end of empire, like Nero metaphorically fiddling while Rome burned.

reply
"Allies" is not the appropriate term for states under your military protection, and which are dependent on you for their basic energy needs, and that host your military bases, and that do pretty much whatever you tell them in the international finance/global military sphere.

Why did Denmark sign the Greenland treaty? It's a humiliation ritual. Unrestricted access to develop the resources of the Greenland's economic zone, a perpetual veto over any foreign investment, and two new military bases, plus expansion of existing bases. With no end date. In exchange for a payment of... zero. And Denmark still needs to pay the block grant. Does that seem like a treaty between equals? What kind of country grants someone else veto power over investment in a region? What kind of country allows the hosting of foreign military bases, and still calls itself sovereign?

"Vassals" is too strong of a term. European states aren't vassals. Once in a while they give a speech against the US at the UN. And they are constantly complaining about how they are treated, as most vassals do. But they aren't allies. If the US were to file taxes, they would be listed as dependents. That is why they rage when someone who doesn't share their vision gets elected US President, but most Americans don't care who is elected in Europe.

That describes the ratio of the influence that European political leaders have on the lives of Americans vis-a-vis the influence that American political leaders have on the lives of Europeans.

And the thing about states in a subordinate position like that is that they are not respected. European political leaders like to pretend that this is a situation of equals and then complain when the US pushes them around, but it has never been a situation of equals since the end of WW2. Only the facade has been slowly dropped in the intervening years. The sooner Europe stops pretending, the better it will be for them, as not pretending is the first step towards gaining true autonomy. But each time I get my hopes up that Europe will take responsibility for their military and energy needs, I get disappointed by the resulting wave of irreality and wishful thinking.

reply
Mostly because they are not allies. They are contractors on a leash.
reply
The leader of the US threatened invasion of Danish territory, as well as trade wars, and some of his allies openly support movements and parties deemed extremist in Europe. That's certainly how you would treat allies.
reply
Partly. As in any relationship, this is not a binary, it is a composite, and has ebbs and flows. Lately the relationship has had ebbs, and with a new administration we can expect flows, but from lower baseline than at least since WW2.
reply
Europe is occupied by the US, so yeah.
reply
As with most things these days there seems to be a difference between the US as a whole which I guess still considers Europe and Canada allies, and President Trump who seems loyal to Putin and rather anti Canada and the EU.
reply
You seen any of Trump's tweets in the last couple months? It used to be all about China but now he talks about Europe and Canada like we're enemies because he feels like the whole world should only do what he wants.
reply
Have you met China? They have no pretenses about being neutral or ethical. For them it's just business.
reply
As oppose to countries who pretend to be neutral or ethical but is also just business?
reply
Yet you wouldn't buy Chinese baby formula, would you?
reply
> You either supply nobody and then you get to play your neutrality card or you pick a side. If you supply both sides you're just a cynical war profiteer without a conscience.

Yes, and that helped turn the US into the global hegemony it is today. No wonder China wants a wack. Power doesn't need a conscience.

reply
Perhaps China just wants geopolitics to be more about business and less about fighting.
reply
Krupp says, "Hallo!" (And so does Vickers.)
reply
> If you supply both sides you're just a cynical war profiteer without a conscience.

That’s a kind of neutrality.

reply
Nobody cares about your moralizing. Not the US, not Europe, not Russia, not China, not anyone. You are making these assertions solely for your own satisfaction. I hope it is pleasurable enough to justify your dedication.
reply