https://nationalinterest.org/feature/one-china%E2%80%99s-leading-realists-how-china-sees-russia-ukraine-conflict-201968

1. A new type of major country relationship
"China and Russia share a new type of major country relationship: non-alignment, non-confrontation, and not targeted at any third party. The aim of the concept of “not capped Sino-Russian relations” is to emphasize the development potential of the two countries, opposing hegemony and unilateralism. However, this relation has its principle and bottom line, which means abiding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter to defend the post-war international system."

2. Seeing the international situation through the lens of macro-history
"Four Dimensions
How shall we understand the Russia-Ukraine conflict? Chinese people tend to view the international situation from the perspective of macro-history, which is quite different from Russia’s space-based perspective. The causes of the conflict can be analyzed from four dimensions.

First is the millennium dimension. The Russia-Ukraine conflict can be seen as a modern version of Europe’s “division and unity” experience, repeated often in the past thousands of years. Generally speaking, there are four aspects of Europe that do not match each other: culture, political, geographic, and economic. Among these four aspects, culture is particularly critical—Jean Monet, the father of Europe, put forth that “If I were to do [the integration of Europe] again from scratch, I would start with culture.” Culturally, Europe can be divided into three parts: the Latin-speaking areas, famous for red wine and Catholicism; Protestant countries that drink beer and have achieved outstanding advances in innovation and coping with debt crises; and the hard alcohol-drinking Slavic nations (including South Slavs in the Balkans and East Slavs, represented by Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia). The latter is not fully integrated into the mainstream of Europe: these states were part of the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, and, following the USSR’s collapse, broadly joined NATO but brought their historical problems with them. The mismatch of these culturally-distinct communities has led South Slavs and East Slavs fail to integrate into the European mainstream culture...

The second dimension is the 400-year-old Westphalia system. Established in 1648, the system can be divided into three parts: nation, state, and sovereignty. Typically, there is no problem if nation and sovereignty fit well together. However, in the current situation, the Russian majority region of Ukraine has voted in favor of greater autonomy, taking the form of two people’s republics. Russians argue that if Americans can subvert the regimes of other countries in the name of humanity and national self-determination, so can Russia. ...

Third is the Cold War dimension. The former Soviet Union spanned the so-called Caudine Forks Marx, from Slavic culture and proposed national self-determination, to withdraw Russia from World War I. In the end, national self-determination evolved into dual sovereignty—which was revealed to be dangerous, as it would allow member states to withdraw from the Soviet Union. Focusing on the current conflict, a key point is that the Soviet Union gave the Donbas region to Ukraine as a gift, ...

And finally, fourth is the post-Cold War dimension. Russia has always held resent over how the end of the conflict and the breakup of the USSR. It has been talking about “a Greater Russia,” but it still has a lot to do. To look at it from an individual perspective, Putin will have an election next year, and he wants to be in power..."

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 10:28:20 PM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> https://nationalinterest.org/feature/one-china%E2%80%99s-leading-realists-how-china-sees-russia-ukraine-conflict-201968
>
> 1. A new type of major country relationship
> "China and Russia share a new type of major country relationship: non-alignment, non-confrontation, and not targeted at any third party. The aim of the concept of “not capped Sino-Russian relations” is to emphasize the development potential of the two countries, opposing hegemony and unilateralism. However, this relation has its principle and bottom line, which means abiding the purposes and principles of the UN Charter to defend the post-war international system."
>
> 2. Seeing the international situation through the lens of macro-history
> "Four Dimensions
> How shall we understand the Russia-Ukraine conflict? Chinese people tend to view the international situation from the perspective of macro-history, which is quite different from Russia’s space-based perspective. The causes of the conflict can be analyzed from four dimensions.
>
> First is the millennium dimension. The Russia-Ukraine conflict can be seen as a modern version of Europe’s “division and unity” experience, repeated often in the past thousands of years. Generally speaking, there are four aspects of Europe that do not match each other: culture, political, geographic, and economic. Among these four aspects, culture is particularly critical—Jean Monet, the father of Europe, put forth that “If I were to do [the integration of Europe] again from scratch, I would start with culture.” Culturally, Europe can be divided into three parts: the Latin-speaking areas, famous for red wine and Catholicism; Protestant countries that drink beer and have achieved outstanding advances in innovation and coping with debt crises; and the hard alcohol-drinking Slavic nations (including South Slavs in the Balkans and East Slavs, represented by Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia). The latter is not fully integrated into the mainstream of Europe: these states were part of the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War, and, following the USSR’s collapse, broadly joined NATO but brought their historical problems with them. The mismatch of these culturally-distinct communities has led South Slavs and East Slavs fail to integrate into the European mainstream culture...
>
> The second dimension is the 400-year-old Westphalia system. Established in 1648, the system can be divided into three parts: nation, state, and sovereignty. Typically, there is no problem if nation and sovereignty fit well together. However, in the current situation, the Russian majority region of Ukraine has voted in favor of greater autonomy, taking the form of two people’s republics. Russians argue that if Americans can subvert the regimes of other countries in the name of humanity and national self-determination, so can Russia. ...
>
> Third is the Cold War dimension. The former Soviet Union spanned the so-called Caudine Forks Marx, from Slavic culture and proposed national self-determination, to withdraw Russia from World War I. In the end, national self-determination evolved into dual sovereignty—which was revealed to be dangerous, as it would allow member states to withdraw from the Soviet Union. Focusing on the current conflict, a key point is that the Soviet Union gave the Donbas region to Ukraine as a gift, ...
>
> And finally, fourth is the post-Cold War dimension. Russia has always held resent over how the end of the conflict and the breakup of the USSR. It has been talking about “a Greater Russia,” but it still has a lot to do. To look at it from an individual perspective, Putin will have an election next year, and he wants to be in power..."

China and Russia are on the same side of the continent. They also grown up in the same ideology. They also worked together to repel US and South Korea's aggressions on North Korea in the Korean war. Russia and China know that they are the two to which US is trying to dethrone them from being a big power with nuclear abilities to destroy US.

Hence, they have to work hard together in order to resist and repel any attack by US and its allies. When they are united, their superpower will become an strengths to command and control the any wicked countries from sneaking up at them. When one is strong and powerful, nobody would dare to bully you.

One needs to open their eyes to see how the past stages of wars over the many years ago are fought and won that were driven by having powerful weapons from satellite to planes, smart and nuclear bombs to destroy and decimate their opponents and people, too.

Hence, in a real world order, it is about weapons of power and not about weapons of humanity. Whoever has the most effective weapons, whoever will be the boss of the military world.

Henceforth, the power of a nation will come from advanced guns, warplanes, cruise weapons, ICBM, nuclear missiles and orbiting intelligence satellites and GPS satellites to listen, watch, capture images of what the enemy is to them when they watch them from the sky.

ltlee1, <news:572a8b0f-eca7-4d26-b800-6f3accab22f3n@googlegroups.com>

> https://nationalinterest.org/feature/one-china%E2%80%99s-leading-realists-how-china-sees-russia-ukraine-conflict-201968

> First is the millennium dimension. The Russia-Ukraine conflict can be seen
> as a modern version of Europe's "division and unity" experience, repeated
> often in the past thousands of years.

"Past thousands of years" is quite a promising introduction. But history
of Europe as a whole is less than 2,000 of years. For earlier times, it's
possible to trace high enough cultures in some spots, development of the
Greek and Roman empires, but when it comes to regions north and east of it,
more or less coherent history begins since 6 - 9 centuries AD, whereas for
earler times, historians often can operate only in terms of arheological
cultures <https://is.gd/k6Dk4K>.

> Generally speaking, there are four aspects of Europe that do not match each
> other: culture, political, geographic, and economic. Among these four
> aspects, culture is particularly critical-Jean Monet, the father of Europe,
> put forth that "If I were to do [the integration of Europe] again from
> scratch, I would start with culture." Culturally, Europe can be divided into
> three parts: the Latin-speaking areas, famous for red wine and Catholicism;
> Protestant countries that drink beer and have achieved outstanding advances
> in innovation and coping with debt crises; and the hard alcohol-drinking
> Slavic nations (including South Slavs in the Balkans and East Slavs,
> represented by Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia).

It's amusing how they focus on drinks (culture of consumption of which had
formed in very recent centuries) missing hard alcohol-drinking Protestant
Scandinavia by the way. Instead, the writers failed to notice an elephant
in the room. I mean, the Eurasian steppe. The steppe cultures were in some
principal respects principally different from sedentary agrarian cultures
(which is itself a broad special topic). Some groups of the steppe nomads
migrated to Europe and shortly sedentarized there. But Europe didn't have
to deal with them on a constant regular basis. But this is what Russia
constantly did since the 10th century until the times (about 17 century and
later) when the steppe nomadism started to lose cultural competitiveness.
It in no way was "friendship of peoples" in romantic Gumilyovist style
<https://tinyurl.com/yhcm5a9n>, but it was an adaptation of a principally
sedentary culture to steppe features. This experience of six centuries was
what defined the rapid Russian expansion since the 16th century, and here's
also one of the key elements that makes Russia "different" from Europe.

From this perspective, Russia can not be attached to the cultural group of
European "Slavic nations", despite some undisputable commonness with them,
besides, Russia is not only Slavic, but also Finnic and Turkic.

Then, the Chinese might also look better at their selves and realize that
the history of China is also the case when a principally sedentary culture
had to accustom itself to steppe features for quite a long time (Great Wall
of China inter alia reminds of that). But were the 17th century's Manchu
sedentary? In Western Sinology, they seem to be surely considered so, while
in Russian Sinology there seem to be more cautious approach. Their "banner
system" does not look like much a sedentary thing.

Among the east-European nations, Hungary is the only country that got a
notable cultural impact from the steppe nomadism, and against its neigbours
Hungary looks and often behaves somewhat out of line. The Hungarians are
Finnic-speaking hard alcohol-drinking Catholics, which does not fit to the
above model. Bonus link <https://is.gd/Qxgi8J>

The (proto-)Ukraine was unseparated from Russia until the 14 century when
pagan Lithuanians had conquered the Kiev region and switched its vassalage
from the Golden Horde to Lithuania. The (proto-)Ukraine was even closer to
steppe <https://is.gd/eXZXpa> than the "Moscow's" Russia (whether it was
about the "pre-Mongol" Cumans or the later nomads related to the Crimean
Khanate). In this sense, the modern Ukraine is culturally as "other" versus
Europe as Russia. But the Ukraine-Europe issue can not be taken as sort of
thing in itself, since it's clear that the West seeks to employ the Ukraine
primarily as a tool against Russia. Somewhat similarly the Atlanticism
employed Turkey against the USSR within NATO, and the EU seduced Turkey
with prospects of membership since the 1960s, and already for a long time
they keep Turkey hanging in association status, and it's highly unlikely it
will ever get a EU membership, because it's also culturally "other".

Btw, the writers should also have Turkey included in their Four Dimensions
analysis. Europe cannot be comprehended if you ignore the Turkey's impact:
the Balkan nations, as well as Romania and Hungary were once within the
Ottoman empire <https://is.gd/WUYuwB>. Turkey is also as peculiar and non-
attachable to any "part of Europe" as Russia.

On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 5:17:26 PM UTC-4, Oleg Smirnov wrote:
> ltlee1, <news:572a8b0f-eca7-4d26...@googlegroups.com>
>
> > https://nationalinterest.org/feature/one-china%E2%80%99s-leading-realists-how-china-sees-russia-ukraine-conflict-201968
> > First is the millennium dimension. The Russia-Ukraine conflict can be seen
> > as a modern version of Europe's "division and unity" experience, repeated
> > often in the past thousands of years.
> "Past thousands of years" is quite a promising introduction. But history
> of Europe as a whole is less than 2,000 of years. For earlier times, it's
> possible to trace high enough cultures in some spots, development of the
> Greek and Roman empires, but when it comes to regions north and east of it,
> more or less coherent history begins since 6 - 9 centuries AD, whereas for
> earler times, historians often can operate only in terms of arheological
> cultures <https://is.gd/k6Dk4K>.
> > Generally speaking, there are four aspects of Europe that do not match each
> > other: culture, political, geographic, and economic. Among these four
> > aspects, culture is particularly critical-Jean Monet, the father of Europe,
> > put forth that "If I were to do [the integration of Europe] again from
> > scratch, I would start with culture." Culturally, Europe can be divided into
> > three parts: the Latin-speaking areas, famous for red wine and Catholicism;
> > Protestant countries that drink beer and have achieved outstanding advances
> > in innovation and coping with debt crises; and the hard alcohol-drinking
> > Slavic nations (including South Slavs in the Balkans and East Slavs,
> > represented by Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia).
> It's amusing how they focus on drinks (culture of consumption of which had
> formed in very recent centuries) missing hard alcohol-drinking Protestant
> Scandinavia by the way. Instead, the writers failed to notice an elephant
> in the room. I mean, the Eurasian steppe. The steppe cultures were in some
> principal respects principally different from sedentary agrarian cultures
> (which is itself a broad special topic). Some groups of the steppe nomads
> migrated to Europe and shortly sedentarized there. But Europe didn't have
> to deal with them on a constant regular basis. But this is what Russia
> constantly did since the 10th century until the times (about 17 century and
> later) when the steppe nomadism started to lose cultural competitiveness.
> It in no way was "friendship of peoples" in romantic Gumilyovist style
> <https://tinyurl.com/yhcm5a9n>, but it was an adaptation of a principally
> sedentary culture to steppe features. This experience of six centuries was
> what defined the rapid Russian expansion since the 16th century, and here's
> also one of the key elements that makes Russia "different" from Europe.
>
> From this perspective, Russia can not be attached to the cultural group of
> European "Slavic nations", despite some undisputable commonness with them,
> besides, Russia is not only Slavic, but also Finnic and Turkic.
>
> Then, the Chinese might also look better at their selves and realize that
> the history of China is also the case when a principally sedentary culture
> had to accustom itself to steppe features for quite a long time (Great Wall
> of China inter alia reminds of that). But were the 17th century's Manchu
> sedentary? In Western Sinology, they seem to be surely considered so, while
> in Russian Sinology there seem to be more cautious approach. Their "banner
> system" does not look like much a sedentary thing.
>
> Among the east-European nations, Hungary is the only country that got a
> notable cultural impact from the steppe nomadism, and against its neigbours
> Hungary looks and often behaves somewhat out of line. The Hungarians are
> Finnic-speaking hard alcohol-drinking Catholics, which does not fit to the
> above model. Bonus link <https://is.gd/Qxgi8J>
>
> The (proto-)Ukraine was unseparated from Russia until the 14 century when
> pagan Lithuanians had conquered the Kiev region and switched its vassalage
> from the Golden Horde to Lithuania. The (proto-)Ukraine was even closer to
> steppe <https://is.gd/eXZXpa> than the "Moscow's" Russia (whether it was
> about the "pre-Mongol" Cumans or the later nomads related to the Crimean
> Khanate). In this sense, the modern Ukraine is culturally as "other" versus
> Europe as Russia. But the Ukraine-Europe issue can not be taken as sort of
> thing in itself, since it's clear that the West seeks to employ the Ukraine
> primarily as a tool against Russia. Somewhat similarly the Atlanticism
> employed Turkey against the USSR within NATO, and the EU seduced Turkey
> with prospects of membership since the 1960s, and already for a long time
> they keep Turkey hanging in association status, and it's highly unlikely it
> will ever get a EU membership, because it's also culturally "other".
>
> Btw, the writers should also have Turkey included in their Four Dimensions
> analysis. Europe cannot be comprehended if you ignore the Turkey's impact:
> the Balkan nations, as well as Romania and Hungary were once within the
> Ottoman empire <https://is.gd/WUYuwB>. Turkey is also as peculiar and non-
> attachable to any "part of Europe" as Russia.

I don't know much about Russia. I also find the 4 dimensions complicated. My
view is simpler:

On one hand, the European history is kind of short for European nations to disregard
their culture, political, geographic, and economic differences to become unified. And
according to Martin Albrow, the idea of an integrated West is out of date.

On the other hand, regarding the Russians and Ukraines per se, French president Macron
still sees them as brotherly peoples. The heart of the current conflict appears to be a large
percentage of Ukrainians' deep grievance against Russia with all possible means.
I have no idea concerning the size of this group. And they see pro-Russian presence
inside UKRAINE as a barrier to their national building. And its presence has to be
removed. In response, Russia tries to deNazify to safeguard the people within
Donbas and Luhan.