I know you are as thick as shit now, I’m nowhere near St Petersburg. But keep telling yourself I’m an agent, you’d probably sleep better at night.
Well I'm not 50 quite yet and I have fuck everyone money so I'll probably outlast you a fair bit. China will do exactly that, and consume Russia both physically and culturally. You will be thinking of the good old days sooner than you imagine. Do you already have social credits in Russia?
The Chinese economy is entirely dependent on exporting merchandise to western countries. Russia comparatively does not even register as a meaningful market for manufactured Chinese goods. China will not risk sanctions on nearly everything being exported to the western world by doing prohibited business with Russian firms or individuals --- which at this point nearly accounts for for the whole of possible advanced manufactured exports.
Yeah they will form an "alliance" and take control of the Kremlin. China wants resources, they will go for the easiest target and you are it now.
Did my first contract hit today. Not my first hit mind you, but my first for a party I was not otherwise implicitly or explicitly obligated to. Nothing personal, of course. My "Client" was in fear of getting hurt by the target even though the target had no bad intentions whatsoever. Imagine getting killed over someone else's desire for peace of mind. The target was a wasp (Not WASP). My 30 year old male roommate, who is not allergic to stings, asked me to kill a wasp that wondered into the bathroom, interrupting his taking of a shit. Or was it the wasp causing him to spontaneously need to take a shit? The wasp was likely looking for water on this hottest day of the year by far. The verbal hit contract was made by his request for me to kill the wasp, consideration in the form of gratitude in support of friendship, and my acceptance. Within a minute or two, I fulfilled the contract to the great relief of my roommate. Now to Russia's attack on Ukraine. What are the thought processes behind decisions that are known to lead to the death of someone? Nay, not someone, but many people? Not just any people, either. Not just people who the decision maker(s) deem as threatening or adversarial, but some of the decision maker's own people are sent to die or suffer horrific injuries? Putin's earlier efforts to grow the economy after the dissolution of the Soviet Union were mostly successful because of his focused leadership and Western investment. Putin was also focused on modernizing Russia's military and responding to potential security risks of an expanding NATO and US sustained geopolitical aggression. I use the words "Was focused" because as it should be patently obvious to all by now, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is hurting Russia's economy and security, both internally and externally, contrary to Putin's stated goals and earlier achievements. Back to the question of what is behind the decision making process that involve lives and livelihoods of one's perceived enemies and their own as well as contractual obligations, both implicit and explicit. The political structure of Russia in practice appears to follow an authoritarian structure where political leaders decide what rights and privileges to be granted to citizens, often based on their "Cooperation". Cooperation that can include orders to kill someone on behalf of another, for the authoritarian's piece of mind. At that point, when it comes down to the lives of wasps or humans, is their even a difference? What kind of contract should we call between Putin and Russian citizens? A "Social contract"? No, a social contract, at least to me, suggests a contract among regular people by and for people, regardless of other defining characteristics among people, including what country they happen to live in. How about a "Citizenship contract"? That is, a contract between an authoritarian regime and the subjects of that regime? When considering such a contract, a question that begs to be asked is "What is it about the regime that citizens should confer authority to it"? Fear of reprisals? Is not a political system based on intimidation of citizens inherently unstable? Is there not a fundamental conflict between an authoritarian citizenship contract and a social contract that is recognized by most people on at least some level? How to leverage these incompatible obligations, whether they are implicit or explicit into peace and security for Europe and beyond? We live in a networked world for its great productivity and technological potential, involving data and communication among citizens of our planet. Any regime that is successful in "Removing" their country from such a network will also be successful at removing themselves from that great economic and innovation engine, resulting in ultimate loss of security either because of internal dissention over quality of life issues or unanswerable external pressures as the regime falls behind their neighbors in critical areas. Putin seemingly cannot admit his invasion of Ukraine is ultimately destined to failure, including how he defined his goals, regardless of the outcome of any particular battle. However, at this point, the war is becoming less about Putin than about his enablers. Putin's enabler's have to know what Russia's path will bring. A path that leads to death. Deaths of Ukrainians, Ukrainian allies perhaps, Russian soldiers, and maybe Russian political leaders as well. Putin's enablers include his military, members of the Politburo, Russian citizens, and to be fair, NATO, at least to some extent. Let's call it "Systemic deficiency". For now, at least. The key ending the Russian-Ukrainian War involves citizens taking decisive action, including Russians, realizing their obligations to a social contract, even on a instinctive level, far outweigh a citizen's perceived obligation or fear to a repressive and failing regime. From a practical standpoint, citizens willing to take on such a risk against such a hostile regime often need to be confident on the commitment by other like-minded people, both within and outside their country. There may be multiple paths towards helping interested citizens taking decisive action involving effective utilization of resources of various types. Some specific ideas to follow. To follow after I do someone else a favor I've committed to, that is.
Strategically, it makes great sense. China is relatively nearby, Russia is a vast, underpopulated country with ample resources, China is a heavy consumer of resources, Russia is becoming increasingly politically unstable, and Russia's military strength is diminishing while war weariness is increasing. Perhaps NATO and China can negotiate how Russia should be carved up between them, with consideration given to India, Japan, the Middle East, etc., for their nod of approval.
Strategically it makes sense for the USA For China it makes zero sense as CHina considers USA not trustworthy bully and the main culprit onto taking Taiwan So China will do whatever it takes to weaken USA - that's what strategically makes sense for China And It includes not making any harm to Russia at all When Taiwan is firmly annexed and USA weakened enough then they may think about Russia. Before that it's just your wet dreams although given how USA is becoming increasingly politically unstable and their military might is being questioned every where after losing war after war after war looks like thing go into right direction for China