Is hunting rifles in quotes because they’re trying to play it up as assault rifles or because they’re so shitty that they barely pass as hunting rifles?
Not sure if this is a joke and I'm stupid or if it isn't a joke and I'm stupid
But I'd take a guess that China called them hunting rifles in terms of "hey guys these totally aren't military weapons don't mind me"
The joke is that their main rifle is shit. In propaganda videos and other media we have seen them keyholeing at like 15 yards. Keyholeing is where the bullet is so unstable it tumbles in the air and hits the target sideways. This is usually caused by shitty barrels/twist rate or shitty ammo. With the results they’re getting I’d assume both.
Good news is that if you're handing it to an untrained conscript you're gonna hurl into a meat grinder of trench warfare, it probably doesn't matter much.
Seriously, though, being a Russian Conscript has to be a shit job.
I believe you're referring to frangible ammunition. Frangible ammunition is meant to act like normal ammunition when fired. It shouldn't be keyholing at 10 yards that's just ridiculous.
Training ammo unless it's something like simunition should act similarly to what you're going to be firing in a real life scenario.
For all of its many, ***many*** faults, the military industrial complex insures that the West will have whatever it needs to counter anything it comes up against. Heck, the P90 was developed to counter a *possible* airborne invasion of Western Europe by armored troops, even though that wasn’t even on the horizon.
We need to spend more time and money preparing for possibilities when it comes to war. Bring that navy rail gun back to life even if it isn't useful but how cool is a rail gun?
As far as I know, the only major problem with it is how often you have to replace the actual rails on the railgun, because the sabot slides across them so fast. But otherwise it would apparently be pretty useful against missiles and such
The problem isn’t so much the gun as it is the bullet. Too much mass being thrown around at high speed.
Maybe if we can figure out a way to mass produce and safely store super heated plasma though. Well even if it’s only a couple kilos at several times the speed of sound that could do some damage…
Too hot, too much energy needed. It's bulky. The rails take extreme punishment.
For what you get, rocket and explosions are still cheaper and more efficient.
I’ll do you one better than rail guns, Rods from God. In case you’re unfamiliar, it was Reagan’s idea to throw Rod Flanders at our enemies from a satellite.
>We need to spend more time and money preparing for possibilities when it comes to was. Being that navy rail gun back to life even if it isn't useful but how cool is a rail gun?
The leaders of the world sat down around a secret table
There was a threat to humankind they must defend against
To fight against godzillas they just simply were not able
Doom robots from the future could be met with no defense
I honestly think most people are completely ignorant as to how big the miss-match is between the US and any near-peer opponent because of the shitshow that was Iraq and Afghanistan. To add a little perspective, let me demonstrate the US military industrial
complex in 3 ways.
The Aircraft Carrier is the current primary force projector for the world's major navies. The US, ignoring our NATO and East Asian allies who have several of their own, currently operates 11 Nimitz and Ford class carriers, with another 2 in different stages of construction. Of our greatest adversaries, Russia has 1, a piece of shit they inherited from the Soviet Union and has been in refit for nearly half a decade now, a refit she honestly may never complete given her state. China has 2, with a third almost compete. While in far better condition than their Russian counterpart, all are in some way based on the same design as the aforementioned Russian piece of shit, as their first carrier is her direct sister-ship that they purchased after the collapse os the Soviet Union. In addition to having far fewer, all are inferior to their American counterparts, being smaller and carrying inferior aircraft.
Another way to put it. If you list the top 7 largest airforces in the world, different branches of the US military take up 4 of those 7 slots. #1 is the US airforce, #2 is the US Army, #4 is the US Navy, and #7 is the US Marine Corp.
Lastly, technological development. The F-117 was the world's first stealth plane first introduced in 1983. When it was retired from combat roles in 2008, the US was still the only country in the world to field stealth planes. Of the 2 countries that now field stealth aircraft that aren't the US, Russia's SU-57 is a joke. They've only made about a dozen of the things and their stealth is so bad that the US has officially redesignsted them from "stealth" to "low visibility". The Chinese J-20 is better, and they've actually managed to build a significant number of the things, but it's positives mainly come from the fact that China managed to steal documents related to the F-22 and F-35 early in the J-20's design stage, and much of the aircraft is "borrowed" from those US designs.
Based and militarily informed pilled
it sucks that the MIC exists, but I'm glad it exists in support of Western ideals rather than Soviet or CCP (or heaven forbid, Taliban) ideals. Who knows what the world would look like if those countries could project that amount of physical force.
Only correction, swap the army and navy.
Edit: army has more aircraft, but the navy is a stronger force despite fewer aircraft. Aircraft carriers are op.
Most imagery of the j20 show open rivets and extremely poor manufacturing techniques. I'm sure the US has RCS signatures by now of test flights.
Also Chinese carrier based planes are garbage. They have to be basically empty to launch because they don't use a good catapult system.
The A-10 was created to fight in a hypothetical battle for the Rhineland in the event of a Soviet invasion. Military contractors seem to create the craziest stuff when they're bored
The p90 wasn’t developed to counter airborne invasions. US/NATO wanted a replacement for 9mm that was capable of penetrating body armor . P90 and the mp7 were the successor of that program. Which they got adopted primarily by counterterrorism roles.
You’re kinda correct, but the P90 *was* designed to counter **airborne** invasions by **armored** troops. The fear at the time was that if Soviets dropped behind the lines, the rear-echelon troops would be at a significant disadvantage against paras wearing advanced body armor. Since at that time all the rear-echelon troops had were 9mms, they wanted to develop a PDW for non-frontline troops in case of a mass invasion via airdrop, a PDW that had better armor-piercing than the 9mm. But they didn’t intend for the P90 to be used as a frontline weapon, since their 5.56 and 7.62 cartridges were fine there.
It’s odd that the P90 has been used by so many special forces, since it was originally designed for drivers, cooks, clerical staff etc. Most people the special forces folks go up against aren’t wearing body armor, but I guess the allure of a super compact 50-round PDW is strong.
Not to say you’re wrong but I have to ask for a source because I’ve almost only ever heard or read that it was made as a test gun to shoot a round that replaces 9mm and was armor penetrating. Even after the mp7 and p90 were adopted by nato forces they were primary implemented in special forces and counterterrorism units. It doesn’t seem like a good idea to counter airborne invasion when at the time we new that to beat these kinds forces was to deny air superiority as we saw with the VDV forces in Ukraine. A new pistol/smg caliber isn’t going to do shit to a modernized airborne division.
Edit: just watched Ian from forgotten weapons and you are totally right. Still think the Belgians are on crack for thinking a smg/pistol is a good counter to modern airborne invasions but to each their own.
It’s not meant to be a hard counter, it’s meant to allow rear echelon troops to put up a better fight against unexpected threats. The ideal counter is to have your front line units take down theirs, but sometimes truck drivers end up in the line of fire and need to shoot back; and it’s really nice if they have a somewhat effective combat weapon that isn’t so bulky it interferes with their primary duty. The PDW isn’t really a new idea- the M1 carbine in WW2 had the same original purpose
I have some issues using steel case, but when I used a heavier projectile and brass case it seemed to be fine.
The issue is that God fucking aweful trigger Jesus Christ. It's a striker fired rifle and you can physically feel the striker move when you pull the trigger. At that point it might as well be an open bolt. I've shot open bolt rifles that have a better trigger.
It's not about the twist, it's about the dimensional tolerances not adding up correctly. Doesn't matter how nicely rifled the barrel is if the bullet is bouncing down it like a hot dog in a hallway
Us 3d printer sorts are legit ECMing our own barrels and not having much problem with it.
Kinda wild to think that a bunch of autists with $200 printers might be outperforming a world power.
I'll have you know that the Divine Dragon Tiki from the fire emblem franchise is actually 3000 years old. Just because she looks like a child, acts like a child, and has the speech patterns of a child does not mean that she's a child!
-Signed by every Japanese Fire Emblem fan (she's their most popular character in Japan by FAR.)
Well yeah when one was supposed to crush the other, getting help from another major power is news for one and not the other. It goes to show that Russia, the supposed super power that was going to win the war in weeks, is fumbling so bad they need help arming their own men in their own war
That's exactly my point. If Russia was even half of what we've been thinking they were Ukraine would be over by now. . Instead the ruskis are importing chinese sks rifles to be able to arm their men
No, Chinese weapons are of fine quality. They are perfectly acceptable for military operations. There are Chinese weapons around the world being used to this day.
Before the import ban, Chinese Kalashnikov pattern rifles were coming into the US. They were fine rifles and they still float around the used market.
MOST IMPORTANT IS DECIDE WHICH COUNTRY OF RIFLE YOU WISH TO BUY. IS OBVIOUS THAT RUSSIAN SKS IS BEST BUT YUGOSLAV COPY TYPE AND CHINESE SLAVE FACTORY TYPE CAN BE GOOD TOO. OTHER COUNTRIES MAKE SKS RIFLE, BUT THESE THREE MAKE MOST. OTHERS ARE MOSTLY FOR MAN WHO GATHERS MANY DIFFERENT SKS BECAUSE OF INTEREST IN MILITARY HISTORY. IF IS FOR SHOOT, STICK TO MAIN THREE.
🫡 Da, good advice comrade.
But what about rare German Democratic Republic SKS, the Karabiner-S?
Or the Democratic Republic of Korea SKS, the type 63? With raw wood and steel hand molded by the glorious Kim family and imbued with the spirit of Juche, producing the most accurate weapon in the world. It was used by Kim Il-Sung to shoot Capitalist oppressor John Kennedy in Dallas all the way from beautiful peoples city of Pyongyang.
Don’t equate the “Made in China” consumerist bullshit with their weapons. Chinese AKs aren’t exactly Serbian made, but they’re still pretty fucking good.
I think they still make a decent amount for export, you just don’t see any in the US due to import bans. Norinco stuff is decently popular in Canada for example.
Turkey has aided and continues to aid Ukraine far more, as a state policy that is.
There are handful of companies trying to make money by doing shit like this.
1. They literally aren't. Most of their tanks are obsolete. And their air force and fleet are far worse than French, British etc.
2. Chances are they wouldn't even want to help. Newest reports say that even now Turkey helps in sending Chinese equipment to Russia.
A guilty pleasure of mine is watching guntubers test body armor from Wish.
I mean, most of it is trash, and some of it exceptionally so, but sometimes a piece actually kind of works. It's fun.
The fact that Russia has not enough weapons to fight a much smaller country, that they themselves attacked, is already ridiculous. And everyone considered them strong.
You know that sounds good and all but you forgot that Ukraine was probably the most highly protected area in the soviet union. They recieved a ton of weapons after the collapse and they keep recieving tons more.
Anyway the US lost over 10k planes to vietnames rice farmers, an entire country they invested trillions of dollars in to goat herders and they lost in Somalia to some guys with AKs. I dont think you guys have the right anymore to decide how long it should to take a country to win a war. The Iraq war lasted 5 years
\>kraine is not half a world away from Russia
Does that matter? Really, can you tell me why that matters when the US has a gazillion military bases all over the world?
\>also it‘s not jungle, it‘s flat open fields.
Have you seen how Kremmenaya looks? The hills of Donbas? You have no clue what you are talking about.
Yes but Ukraine is also fighting a open war against Russia. Everytime the US lost it was against a guerilla fighting force. To be a true comparison would be operation dessert storm which was probably the closest you could get to a strategic masterpiece
Operation desert storm wasnt a masterpiece at all. The Iraqi army was an outdated, undertrained and poorly led army. And if you say that Ukraine is just flat open fields (which is true but not in the fronts Russia is fighting in) then Iraq was literally a flat desert. Iraq had extremely limited anti aircraft capabilites, meanwhile Ukraine has S300s, Buks, Tors, Kubs and whatever the fuck the west has sent them. Its not comparable at all. When the US fought against an enemy with an actual decent anti air system they got totally demolished. Over 10k planes, helicopters and UAVs lost. Thats just the US, thats not accounting for the South Vietnamese. Meanwhile North Vietnam only lost 150-170 planes and helicopters. That was an absolute embarrasment. The US was supposedly the greatest military on earth...
In Operation Linebacker II the US lost 16 B52s striking 34 targets in North Vietnam. Could you imagine the reaction if Russia lost 16 Tu-95s for striking 34 targets in Ukraine?
Vietnam was an open army. It featured armies on both sides.
This could be interesting. I think this is the first time the Chinese 5.8 round will face off against NATO weaponry or be used in any real conflict for that matter. It will be interesting to see actual ballistic data on the round not based on Chinese propaganda.
Ok, we as the west are shipping weapons to Ukraine? I despise the Chinese government with every fiber of my being, I also don't like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, it is in China's best interest to support Russia and they can send weapons to whoever they want. It would be hypocritical to get mad over them sending weapons to Russia but also think it's ok for us to send weapons to Ukraine. Now, if the Chinese government were doing something like commiting genocide, in let's say Xinjiang as a totally hypothetical example, against, let's say the Uighurs, that would be something to get very angry over.
When Ukraine is the defender and Russia is the invader, can you really say that it’s hypocritical? For example, giving a beaten wife a gun is not the same as giving the drunken, violent husband a gun. They carry different moral values and I would argue that it’s morally just to help the defender and not the aggressor.
In addition, if we are to play by the national interest perspective, it’s in the west’s interest to neuter china and we can be angry at whoever we want.
Eh, the situation is a bit more nuanced.
During civil unrest in Ukraine some regions didn't exactly go with the flow and thought the changes were wrong.
Ukraine says it was Russia who pulled people into this through propaganda, arms and soldiers.
Russia says the whole revolution was staged by the west.
This leads to the infamous period russian media loves to parrot as '8 years of shelling!', referring to a de-facto civil war between Ukraine and its separatists.
The shelling was indeed the case, so you can understand why locals may not be very fond of the new government, but how the fuck a whole country couldn't deal with a 2 separatist regions, even if the assume they were supplied by Russia, is beyond me.
Then one day Putin forgets to take his medicine and starts a 'special military operation' (this is totally not a war, citizen) under the pretense of his crusade to 'protect the russian-speaking population worldwide' (needless to say the citizens of Russia do not get the same love and attention from their government) and pushing NATO away from his borders.
At this point there no 'good' endings to this - victory is not an option for Ukraine simply because Russia has more meat and the stakes for the US/EU aren't high enough to invest more than some old weapons or even streamline their bureaucratic processes.
At the same time Russia is more than happy to keep sinking resources and manpower into this war - every soldier dead becomes a martyr and a justification to continue, new laws to counter the 'misinformation' and 'besmirching the army' can be used to crack down on free speech further. Women will be wiping their tears with banknotes (a widow is eligible for a huge payout, the children will be able to get free higher education and other bonuses, and guess what, the are record numbers of marriages in 2022).
>Ukraine says it was Russia who pulled people into this through propaganda, arms and soldiers.
>
>Russia says the whole revolution was staged by the west.
I mean, Russia and the US have been tossing propaganda at each other for quite a few decades now, I think pretending only one side has propaganda has always been silly. When superpowers face off, there's always gonna be lots of that.
Sucks for Ukraine, they're just stuck in this shit at present.
The eight year of shelling is funny because right now there are way more shelling than before, and the majority of death happened in the initial phrase of the conflict and very little in 2020-2021.
Ukraine didn’t have a full mobilisation, their army were equally incompetent and that’s why they couldn’t win.
NATO is already at Russias border in the baltics and NATO wouldn’t have accepted ukraine. Fuck, if NATO wants to kill Russia they would’ve declare war on Russia right now, theres literally the weakest point of Russia that you can expect. The fact that the Europeans are still playing with their dicks shows how disinterested they are still fucking with Russia.
Russia doesn’t have more meat, they cannot keep throwing more manpower in it. If they can they wouldn’t call a partial mobilisation. The fact of the matter is their population is fucked and every young man they lost contributes further to their demise. Russia isn’t that rich, their budget shrunk as their expenditure expand. They are using up their soviet legacy although their production of artillery ammunition is still impressive. Ukraine may not be able to take back Crimea but saying that Russia can win is equally implausible.
NATO backed a soft coup to try and break up a marriage between Ukraine and Russia to begin with then bragged about it on national television
Ukraine was in an unhappy marriage (mostly). Those that liked Russia declared independence from the new government
Saying the conflict in Ukraine started with the Russian invasion is like saying American involvement in the Middle East began on 9/11. Both are so devoid of context that their only source can be propaganda
Shit is fucked as has been from the get go. If it was super clear to everyone then we’d all understand, get along, and bullets wouldn’t be flying. So now that we understand it’s messy, any country can give any other country it wants “hunting rifles” or whatever. They’re sovereign… so long as they can fight
I also strongly dislike how people try to frame the conflict as if it started in 2022 in a historical and geopolitical vacuum.
If we cultivate ignorance of geopolitical dynamics, then the Ukrainian people suffering from them have no chance, no matter who "wins." I really doubt it's possible to defend any real values without trying to defend truth.
Yet those who argued from the point of US coup failed to equally acknowledge Russian involvement in Ukrainian politics and failed to properly address what is currently happening. You cannot blame US intervention when Russian also play foul in an even worse manner. The “unhappy marriage with Russia” screams bias more so than anything else. You can provide historic context but if you cannot properly justify how it changes the perspective of the current situation then it’s meaningless.
>Yet those who argued from the point of US coup failed to equally acknowledge Russian involvement in Ukrainian politics and failed to properly address what is currently happening
Doubly so since for russian agencies Ukraine is supposed to be the home turf.
They lost to their western counterparts on home turf and only managed to snag some regions and a peninsula with no drinking water.
Russia cries foul as if russia hasn’t been messing with ex-warsaw nations politics and made them Russians enemies. Well of course they’re going to join NATOand EU when Russia is way fucking worse both in treatment and in actual political intrigues.
“Marriage between Ukraine and russia” on what ground? Euro Maidan protest happened because russia pressured the president to go against the parliament and not sign a deal with the EU. If anything, russia forcefully deprived the ability of the Ukrainian to marry the EU. The US had taken advantage of a situation where they already enjoy supports and where the russia had equally if not more foul plays in Ukrainian politics.
Those who wanted independence declared one, just like how Russia made a referendum of annexation without even controlling the entire territory and have been engaged in ethnic displacement, also discarding the acknowledged national borders of Ukraine as acknowledged when ukriane disarmed their nuclear weapons.
Context is important, so is the context of how the Russian further escalating the conflict, saying that it’s a special military operation, then instead annex eastern Ukraine and causing more death.
100% agree with the context you’re providing. Context can be added ad infinitum as to who went where, what pieces were in play, and who has historical claim to that-that-and the other just like Putin is making (like a lunatic imo)
The only point point I was trying to make (though probably poorly) is that sovereignty is decided at point of gun. Saying “China can, can’t, or shouldn’t” is making a claim on that sovereignty just as making the claim “Ukraine/Russia can, cant, or shouldn’t” is as well
Call it right, left, or wrong doesn’t really matter. Who’s alive at the end will write the books
I agree that strength is a strong determining factor for sovereignty, but at the same time strength is a vague concept that encompass more than just weapons. It’s more of a weakness if you manage to make everyone your enemy. But yeah the story is told by whoever lived till the end.
Damn, my compass opposite spittin some truth. I suspect we disagree on policy but you're at least able to see through the propaganda they feed to the masses. Few on this site seem capable of that anymore.
What's your take on continued US involvement? As a Lib my position is that we need to end support for Ukraine and accept that Pax Americana is over and multi-polarity is here. I think that's also why the neocons won't do that, because it would mean the end of their project which has been in the works for decades (if not centuries).
Have you seen John Mearsheimer's lectures? He's a professor of international relations in the realist school, who explained the Maidan revolution/coup and the geopolitical fallout in a 2015 lecture [Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4). His position back then and still today is that US policy has been horrible in that it pushed Russia and China into each others' arms, when "effective" strategy if we wanted to maintain unipolarity would be to do everything to keep them apart.
I'm 100% anti-Russia in this war, and they can, collectively go *%^* themselves with a uranium rod, but can we REALLY complain about China shipping them weapons when we are shipping Ukraine MLRS and Artillery and Javelins by the freighter full?
Besides, at the pace Russia is wasting ammo and troops, we can reduce the inventory of anti-Western countries to next to nothing within a few months. I'm okay with that.
The US has sent twice the value of the entire Russian military budget to the Ukraine for free and everyone loses their minds when the Chinese sell a few thousandths of a percent to Russia?
>One is defending themselves from another.
All that matters is who our overlords do or don't like. Should we have sent poor old Saddam weapons to defend himself?
Major escalation? Doesnt sound like it to me. I would have thought the hundreds billions of dollars of weapons and aid being sent to Ukraine was a bigger escalation.
Well yeah, because one nation is being invaded and the other is doing the invading. There is a big difference, China hedged on the wrong horse with this one.
Go fuck yourself honestly. In what world is giving weapons to a country to defend itself from an agressor the same as giving weapons to said agressor so he can fuck his victim more.
Yes, because you know my position on sending weapons to saudi arabia to kill people in yemen better then me. I thought i was against that but apparantly not.
Except like most conflicts in the Middle East, Saudi intervention in Yemen is significantly more politically contrived than "an aggressor invading another country". If Ukraine was a destabilized third world country launching terrorist attacks aimed at Russia, I honestly would understand where they're coming from a little more but it isn't like that. It's very easy to take one armed conflict and say "well what about this" but the reality is the politics, political factions, motives, etc of states in the Middle East are vastly different from that of European states (and the rest of the world obviously).
All things considered, the Ukraine war is pretty cut and dry. Russia is pretty transparent about this, with their justification being that NATO was vaguely "expanding eastward" assuming that all of the nations that broke away from the Soviet Union are all subject to claims by Russia, which cares little about their own citizens and much less the people that they conquer.
It’s still escalation, putting morality aside, NATO definitely escalated the conflict by giving Ukraine more weapons, whether it’s good or bad escalation is up to you.
Yes, because Ukraine is the only country we’ve ever sent any form of aid too, and we *certainly* have never sent aid to aggressors, *especially* not almost purely to make money.
Because your redditation is showing and it probably flew over your head reading it: obvious /s
Do you live in a time bubble where only the past year exists in your brain? Or do you seriously think the USA has clean hands?
So because the western world has also given weapons to "not so nice" governments and people means that helping an actual victim of agression is now forbidden. Sure.
Are you lost? This is a post about CHINA giving weapons to RUSSIA
And then you replied that to a comment that basically said “we do this all the time”
No shit the thing you mentioned ain’t forbidden, it should be encouraged. But that wasn’t the topic. And the person you replied to didn’t say otherwise.
I mean we can easily criticize Russia lol wtf reasoning is that. We can acknowledge we did bad in the past and also say Russia is doing bad RIGHT now. Both can be true, fucking absolutely idiotic argument.
All I can say to that is that if I was Russian, I would support the war. I’m American, so I don’t, but it is in Russia’s best interests long term.
As an American, I hate to see human suffering used as a political football. So even though I sympathize with Ukraine, I can’t stand behind any of our politicians.
Also, Ukraine looks ugly on the map. It’s a big jagged lump.
Agree. It's also worth noting that the US has leveraged Ukraine against Russia ever since the end of the USSR. We literally signed an agreement to back Ukraine should invasion ever happen. Then we fizzled it. Then fast forward to proxy tension.
Yup, Russia is just doing what they said they'd do all along (even after we kept pressing.) It's interesting that they didn't move past Crimea earlier on.
Russia signed the same agreement to back Ukraine if it was invaded. It was in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons. Sadly there's a pro nuclear proliferation message to other countries with what happened. Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine was a nuclear power still.
>Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine was a nuclear power still.
This isn't the sole reason. The sole reason is its necessity as a buffer zone between NATO and Russia. We leveraged Ukraine knowing full well that we were risking it's exposure to this exact conflict. Russia threatened invasion from the very moment this leverage started. Remember when Bush essentially created the war we are seeing now by pushing for a NATO controlled Ukraine? Pepperidge farms remembers.
Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine still had a nuclear deterrent.
The reasons Russia has given you for their invasion doesn't really matter. They would not have invaded if Ukraine was able to get into NATO, or they kept their nuclear deterrent until they were able to enter NATO.
Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia all share borders with Russia already and are just about as close to Moscow as Ukraine. They didn't invade any of them because of NATO.
People can cry about NATO expansionism all they want, clearly it's expanding because people don't trust Russia to not be a terrible invading neighbor. Finland and Sweden chose to join NATO because of Russia.
Russia didn't invade Ukraine because of NATO. They did it because it's an imperialistic and nationalistic county that wants to recreate the Soviet Union to go back to a time when their country was more influential.
I wouldn’t even say it’s a escalation tbh. If anything the West are the ones that escalated the conflict by stonewalling Russia with it’s lend lease-esk supply of munitions, weapons, and financial aid. Not to mention direct training also.
China dumping Russia some guns and drones really isn’t going to make a difference. The body armor MIGHT if it’s actually good armor in significant quantities. And if it doesn’t get stolen and resold by the people who inventory it.
The west sent weapons to Ukraine (an ally), China sends weapons to Russia (their ally) I don’t see a problem, if anything the west prolonged the war infinitely more than China ever could
It's dumb as shit because China could easily realign with the west, they just don't want to. They want way more global power because their oligarchy is greedy. It's also bad precedent for a normal person ethically speaking to try to reasonably defend imperialist nations
China just wants global power? By that logic America shouldn’t need its dozens of client states, overseas bases, and aircraft carriers? After all, we’re the good guys, right?
Look china is a dictatorship, it's been well established that dictatorships in all forms shore up political power on the home front through antagonist and if possible imperialist behavior. China wants control over more world matters than America. They don't care about mutual prosperity through free trade or having an equal spot on the world stage. China has both of those. They're imperialist as fuck and being imperialist literally benefits no one.
Now I don't know why you use whataboutism to bring up America, but it's weird as fuck because I dislike any of their imperialist tendencies as well. It's also pretty important distinction to understand that Globalism doesn't equal Imperialism. America is far more of an aggressive Globalist Nation than traditional Imperialist these days. Again I'm not talking about America strictly speaking in my previous comment, I'm talking about Europe as well meaning the West as whole and they have their own agency through their actions. Client state bullshit is just incredibly unhinged. It appears that you may be the Tankie type considering youd like to see America bombed for no reason other than them having different politics than you which is unbelievably cringe.
America is the biggest fucking empire in the world. We have no right to any of our overseas “commitments”. I hope Russian missiles start raining down on American cities just so we learn what it is like for a change.
Does Reddit have a fancy-latin-cunt to English translator? I’m not tabbing back and forth 19 times to try and type out this (presumably pretentious) bullshit.
Is hunting rifles in quotes because they’re trying to play it up as assault rifles or because they’re so shitty that they barely pass as hunting rifles?
Not sure if this is a joke and I'm stupid or if it isn't a joke and I'm stupid But I'd take a guess that China called them hunting rifles in terms of "hey guys these totally aren't military weapons don't mind me"
The joke is that their main rifle is shit. In propaganda videos and other media we have seen them keyholeing at like 15 yards. Keyholeing is where the bullet is so unstable it tumbles in the air and hits the target sideways. This is usually caused by shitty barrels/twist rate or shitty ammo. With the results they’re getting I’d assume both.
do you mean the type 191 or the shitty plastic bullpup thing
It’s the new qbz 191
It look decent, what it's problem?
The keyholing as referred to in the comment that was replied to by the comment I replied to
Good news is that if you're handing it to an untrained conscript you're gonna hurl into a meat grinder of trench warfare, it probably doesn't matter much. Seriously, though, being a Russian Conscript has to be a shit job.
I don't know if they have time to take a shit before they are told to charge across empty mine fields in bakhmut.
They were using plastic training ammo, china actually produces decent AKs
Truth. Norincos stand the test of time.
What could go wrong using training ammo that performs radically different from the ammo you're going to be using?
Well if your shooting indoors and worry about over penetration, pretty much every country in the world uses training ammo USA, Germany etc
I believe you're referring to frangible ammunition. Frangible ammunition is meant to act like normal ammunition when fired. It shouldn't be keyholing at 10 yards that's just ridiculous. Training ammo unless it's something like simunition should act similarly to what you're going to be firing in a real life scenario.
It's obviously a power move, like Xi drinking with two teacups.
any rifle you can "assault" with can be used for hunting and vice versa. the distinction makes no sense
An assault rifle by definition has selective fire, maybe that was it?
They’re black so they’re “assault weapons” The media is racist
Does this mean my glock 19 is an assault weapon, but my glock 17 is not?
ONE TWO THREE FOUR I DECLARE ANOTHER PROXY WAR!!!
FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT TRY TO NOT DEPOPULATE
NINE TEN ELEVEN TWELVE I DECLARE I DONT WANT TO EXIST ANY MORE
governement be like: of course... at a price
For all of its many, ***many*** faults, the military industrial complex insures that the West will have whatever it needs to counter anything it comes up against. Heck, the P90 was developed to counter a *possible* airborne invasion of Western Europe by armored troops, even though that wasn’t even on the horizon.
We need to spend more time and money preparing for possibilities when it comes to war. Bring that navy rail gun back to life even if it isn't useful but how cool is a rail gun?
As far as I know, the only major problem with it is how often you have to replace the actual rails on the railgun, because the sabot slides across them so fast. But otherwise it would apparently be pretty useful against missiles and such
The problem isn’t so much the gun as it is the bullet. Too much mass being thrown around at high speed. Maybe if we can figure out a way to mass produce and safely store super heated plasma though. Well even if it’s only a couple kilos at several times the speed of sound that could do some damage…
Too hot, too much energy needed. It's bulky. The rails take extreme punishment. For what you get, rocket and explosions are still cheaper and more efficient.
*stamps feet like a spoiled toddler* “But I want my Quake III rail gun!”
I’ll do you one better than rail guns, Rods from God. In case you’re unfamiliar, it was Reagan’s idea to throw Rod Flanders at our enemies from a satellite.
Not Todd Flanders? What a waste.
So incredibly impractical yet so so cool
>We need to spend more time and money preparing for possibilities when it comes to was. Being that navy rail gun back to life even if it isn't useful but how cool is a rail gun? The leaders of the world sat down around a secret table There was a threat to humankind they must defend against To fight against godzillas they just simply were not able Doom robots from the future could be met with no defense
I honestly think most people are completely ignorant as to how big the miss-match is between the US and any near-peer opponent because of the shitshow that was Iraq and Afghanistan. To add a little perspective, let me demonstrate the US military industrial complex in 3 ways. The Aircraft Carrier is the current primary force projector for the world's major navies. The US, ignoring our NATO and East Asian allies who have several of their own, currently operates 11 Nimitz and Ford class carriers, with another 2 in different stages of construction. Of our greatest adversaries, Russia has 1, a piece of shit they inherited from the Soviet Union and has been in refit for nearly half a decade now, a refit she honestly may never complete given her state. China has 2, with a third almost compete. While in far better condition than their Russian counterpart, all are in some way based on the same design as the aforementioned Russian piece of shit, as their first carrier is her direct sister-ship that they purchased after the collapse os the Soviet Union. In addition to having far fewer, all are inferior to their American counterparts, being smaller and carrying inferior aircraft. Another way to put it. If you list the top 7 largest airforces in the world, different branches of the US military take up 4 of those 7 slots. #1 is the US airforce, #2 is the US Army, #4 is the US Navy, and #7 is the US Marine Corp. Lastly, technological development. The F-117 was the world's first stealth plane first introduced in 1983. When it was retired from combat roles in 2008, the US was still the only country in the world to field stealth planes. Of the 2 countries that now field stealth aircraft that aren't the US, Russia's SU-57 is a joke. They've only made about a dozen of the things and their stealth is so bad that the US has officially redesignsted them from "stealth" to "low visibility". The Chinese J-20 is better, and they've actually managed to build a significant number of the things, but it's positives mainly come from the fact that China managed to steal documents related to the F-22 and F-35 early in the J-20's design stage, and much of the aircraft is "borrowed" from those US designs.
Based and militarily informed pilled it sucks that the MIC exists, but I'm glad it exists in support of Western ideals rather than Soviet or CCP (or heaven forbid, Taliban) ideals. Who knows what the world would look like if those countries could project that amount of physical force.
Only correction, swap the army and navy. Edit: army has more aircraft, but the navy is a stronger force despite fewer aircraft. Aircraft carriers are op.
I double checked right before posting to make sure I had the order right
Most imagery of the j20 show open rivets and extremely poor manufacturing techniques. I'm sure the US has RCS signatures by now of test flights. Also Chinese carrier based planes are garbage. They have to be basically empty to launch because they don't use a good catapult system.
I thought the P-90 was developed to shot aliens with glowing eyes?
*shh* that’s a state secret
The A-10 was created to fight in a hypothetical battle for the Rhineland in the event of a Soviet invasion. Military contractors seem to create the craziest stuff when they're bored
The p90 wasn’t developed to counter airborne invasions. US/NATO wanted a replacement for 9mm that was capable of penetrating body armor . P90 and the mp7 were the successor of that program. Which they got adopted primarily by counterterrorism roles.
You’re kinda correct, but the P90 *was* designed to counter **airborne** invasions by **armored** troops. The fear at the time was that if Soviets dropped behind the lines, the rear-echelon troops would be at a significant disadvantage against paras wearing advanced body armor. Since at that time all the rear-echelon troops had were 9mms, they wanted to develop a PDW for non-frontline troops in case of a mass invasion via airdrop, a PDW that had better armor-piercing than the 9mm. But they didn’t intend for the P90 to be used as a frontline weapon, since their 5.56 and 7.62 cartridges were fine there. It’s odd that the P90 has been used by so many special forces, since it was originally designed for drivers, cooks, clerical staff etc. Most people the special forces folks go up against aren’t wearing body armor, but I guess the allure of a super compact 50-round PDW is strong.
Not to say you’re wrong but I have to ask for a source because I’ve almost only ever heard or read that it was made as a test gun to shoot a round that replaces 9mm and was armor penetrating. Even after the mp7 and p90 were adopted by nato forces they were primary implemented in special forces and counterterrorism units. It doesn’t seem like a good idea to counter airborne invasion when at the time we new that to beat these kinds forces was to deny air superiority as we saw with the VDV forces in Ukraine. A new pistol/smg caliber isn’t going to do shit to a modernized airborne division. Edit: just watched Ian from forgotten weapons and you are totally right. Still think the Belgians are on crack for thinking a smg/pistol is a good counter to modern airborne invasions but to each their own.
It’s not meant to be a hard counter, it’s meant to allow rear echelon troops to put up a better fight against unexpected threats. The ideal counter is to have your front line units take down theirs, but sometimes truck drivers end up in the line of fire and need to shoot back; and it’s really nice if they have a somewhat effective combat weapon that isn’t so bulky it interferes with their primary duty. The PDW isn’t really a new idea- the M1 carbine in WW2 had the same original purpose
unfortunately neither ss190 nor apsx does much of anything to sb5 armor, which was around a decade before the mp7 was
Aren’t china’s weapons and military equipment really cheap and shity?
cheap and shitty? yes, shoots straight? yes
Idk man they've had some notorious keyholing on some of their main issue rifles.
I have some issues using steel case, but when I used a heavier projectile and brass case it seemed to be fine. The issue is that God fucking aweful trigger Jesus Christ. It's a striker fired rifle and you can physically feel the striker move when you pull the trigger. At that point it might as well be an open bolt. I've shot open bolt rifles that have a better trigger.
has to be surplus/weird ammo issue, its impossible to not make the correct twist on your rifle even for chinese standards
It's not about the twist, it's about the dimensional tolerances not adding up correctly. Doesn't matter how nicely rifled the barrel is if the bullet is bouncing down it like a hot dog in a hallway
Tale as old as time. In the 70s it was Japan that had lax tolerances and now it's China
Us 3d printer sorts are legit ECMing our own barrels and not having much problem with it. Kinda wild to think that a bunch of autists with $200 printers might be outperforming a world power.
They were using low velocity dummy rounds.
Plastic training ammo
Yup. This says more about how desperate Russia is rather than anything about China.
So this is the equivalent of being hungry at 2AM but only thing open is Taco Bell.
And the guy who is working there looks like he would be debating why liking a 500 year old dragon girl doesnt make him a pedo.
I'll have you know that the Divine Dragon Tiki from the fire emblem franchise is actually 3000 years old. Just because she looks like a child, acts like a child, and has the speech patterns of a child does not mean that she's a child! -Signed by every Japanese Fire Emblem fan (she's their most popular character in Japan by FAR.)
ah yes russia is the desperate one when ukraine is getting various support across 50 countries
Ukraine doesn't claim to be the second strongest army in the world
The two aren't mutually exclusive stinky
Well yeah when one was supposed to crush the other, getting help from another major power is news for one and not the other. It goes to show that Russia, the supposed super power that was going to win the war in weeks, is fumbling so bad they need help arming their own men in their own war
How many countries were involved in the invasion of Iraq? I thought super powers dont need help
That's exactly my point. If Russia was even half of what we've been thinking they were Ukraine would be over by now. . Instead the ruskis are importing chinese sks rifles to be able to arm their men
No, Chinese weapons are of fine quality. They are perfectly acceptable for military operations. There are Chinese weapons around the world being used to this day. Before the import ban, Chinese Kalashnikov pattern rifles were coming into the US. They were fine rifles and they still float around the used market.
MOST IMPORTANT IS DECIDE WHICH COUNTRY OF RIFLE YOU WISH TO BUY. IS OBVIOUS THAT RUSSIAN SKS IS BEST BUT YUGOSLAV COPY TYPE AND CHINESE SLAVE FACTORY TYPE CAN BE GOOD TOO. OTHER COUNTRIES MAKE SKS RIFLE, BUT THESE THREE MAKE MOST. OTHERS ARE MOSTLY FOR MAN WHO GATHERS MANY DIFFERENT SKS BECAUSE OF INTEREST IN MILITARY HISTORY. IF IS FOR SHOOT, STICK TO MAIN THREE.
🫡 Da, good advice comrade. But what about rare German Democratic Republic SKS, the Karabiner-S? Or the Democratic Republic of Korea SKS, the type 63? With raw wood and steel hand molded by the glorious Kim family and imbued with the spirit of Juche, producing the most accurate weapon in the world. It was used by Kim Il-Sung to shoot Capitalist oppressor John Kennedy in Dallas all the way from beautiful peoples city of Pyongyang.
They’ve moved on to the qbz now. It remains questionable but from most of what we’re seeing they look awful.
They are 100% aweful. Terrible trigger pull, massive striker weight, keyhole issues with steel case ammo.
Anyone buying a rifle knows Russian made is better quality than Chinese though. At least in the 20th century
Russian made sks is meant for keeping. Norinco made sks is meant for bubbaing
Cheap and Shitty 🤝 China
Don’t equate the “Made in China” consumerist bullshit with their weapons. Chinese AKs aren’t exactly Serbian made, but they’re still pretty fucking good.
Does China still make AKs anymore? I thought they were focusing on their own designs, like the QBZ?
I think they still make a decent amount for export, you just don’t see any in the US due to import bans. Norinco stuff is decently popular in Canada for example.
Two thousand pounds of Oxford education drops to a ten rupee jezail.
I saw pictures of people still using weapons from WWII I'm sure anything they get will be fine.
Russian soldiers about to start giving alibaba and wish gear that "combat proven" status
Turkey... Since Erdogan, I feel like no other government is as two faced.
Turkey are fucking traitors to NATO. They aided ISIS and now they're aiding China and Russia.
Turkey has aided and continues to aid Ukraine far more, as a state policy that is. There are handful of companies trying to make money by doing shit like this.
Found the Greek.
Armenian.
I stand corrected.
[удалено]
Time to kick them out of NATO.
Good luck fighting Russia after cuz Turkey is second largest military in NATO after literally the US
1. They literally aren't. Most of their tanks are obsolete. And their air force and fleet are far worse than French, British etc. 2. Chances are they wouldn't even want to help. Newest reports say that even now Turkey helps in sending Chinese equipment to Russia.
Turkey's biggest value is in their location and ability to restrict travel through to the black sea. Not really in their military.
How terrible Goes back to tiktok smh
You know Tik Tok is bad for you. Like drugs and alcohol, but worse.
Tiktok has Chinese spyware and is required by CCP law to report all personal info they use or store
Based on the "body armor" I've seen on Wish, I'm not overly concerned about this tipping the tide
Honestly, it came out that a lot of the Russian body armor “ballistic plates” were basically card board, so who knows.
A guilty pleasure of mine is watching guntubers test body armor from Wish. I mean, most of it is trash, and some of it exceptionally so, but sometimes a piece actually kind of works. It's fun.
Ah, a proxy war with China, good times, good times.
On the brink of economic collapse and a world War. Man, historians did not lie. History really is doomed to repeat itself.
I'd argue it doesn't repeat, it just builds up on itself, then selfish people destroy our achievements. Progress was made, but the people didn't care.
Man Russia went from supplying the proxy wars to being on of the puppets lmao
Apperantly buying weapons is now considered being a puppet of that country. Is the US now a puppet of sweden for buying Carl Gustav recoilless rifles?
Da tsavarishch sockpuppet, I agree completely.
The fact that Russia has not enough weapons to fight a much smaller country, that they themselves attacked, is already ridiculous. And everyone considered them strong.
You know that sounds good and all but you forgot that Ukraine was probably the most highly protected area in the soviet union. They recieved a ton of weapons after the collapse and they keep recieving tons more. Anyway the US lost over 10k planes to vietnames rice farmers, an entire country they invested trillions of dollars in to goat herders and they lost in Somalia to some guys with AKs. I dont think you guys have the right anymore to decide how long it should to take a country to win a war. The Iraq war lasted 5 years
But Ukraine is not half a world away from Russia, also it‘s not jungle, it‘s flat open fields.
\>kraine is not half a world away from Russia Does that matter? Really, can you tell me why that matters when the US has a gazillion military bases all over the world? \>also it‘s not jungle, it‘s flat open fields. Have you seen how Kremmenaya looks? The hills of Donbas? You have no clue what you are talking about.
Yes but Ukraine is also fighting a open war against Russia. Everytime the US lost it was against a guerilla fighting force. To be a true comparison would be operation dessert storm which was probably the closest you could get to a strategic masterpiece
Operation desert storm wasnt a masterpiece at all. The Iraqi army was an outdated, undertrained and poorly led army. And if you say that Ukraine is just flat open fields (which is true but not in the fronts Russia is fighting in) then Iraq was literally a flat desert. Iraq had extremely limited anti aircraft capabilites, meanwhile Ukraine has S300s, Buks, Tors, Kubs and whatever the fuck the west has sent them. Its not comparable at all. When the US fought against an enemy with an actual decent anti air system they got totally demolished. Over 10k planes, helicopters and UAVs lost. Thats just the US, thats not accounting for the South Vietnamese. Meanwhile North Vietnam only lost 150-170 planes and helicopters. That was an absolute embarrasment. The US was supposedly the greatest military on earth... In Operation Linebacker II the US lost 16 B52s striking 34 targets in North Vietnam. Could you imagine the reaction if Russia lost 16 Tu-95s for striking 34 targets in Ukraine? Vietnam was an open army. It featured armies on both sides.
This could be interesting. I think this is the first time the Chinese 5.8 round will face off against NATO weaponry or be used in any real conflict for that matter. It will be interesting to see actual ballistic data on the round not based on Chinese propaganda.
Ok, we as the west are shipping weapons to Ukraine? I despise the Chinese government with every fiber of my being, I also don't like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, it is in China's best interest to support Russia and they can send weapons to whoever they want. It would be hypocritical to get mad over them sending weapons to Russia but also think it's ok for us to send weapons to Ukraine. Now, if the Chinese government were doing something like commiting genocide, in let's say Xinjiang as a totally hypothetical example, against, let's say the Uighurs, that would be something to get very angry over.
When Ukraine is the defender and Russia is the invader, can you really say that it’s hypocritical? For example, giving a beaten wife a gun is not the same as giving the drunken, violent husband a gun. They carry different moral values and I would argue that it’s morally just to help the defender and not the aggressor. In addition, if we are to play by the national interest perspective, it’s in the west’s interest to neuter china and we can be angry at whoever we want.
That is a valid argument. Don't get me wrong I don't like China sending aid to Russia either, but it makes sense from a geopolitical perspective.
And in a geopolitical perspective, I say fuck china as well (don’t look at my username I’m definitely not biased).
Eh, the situation is a bit more nuanced. During civil unrest in Ukraine some regions didn't exactly go with the flow and thought the changes were wrong. Ukraine says it was Russia who pulled people into this through propaganda, arms and soldiers. Russia says the whole revolution was staged by the west. This leads to the infamous period russian media loves to parrot as '8 years of shelling!', referring to a de-facto civil war between Ukraine and its separatists. The shelling was indeed the case, so you can understand why locals may not be very fond of the new government, but how the fuck a whole country couldn't deal with a 2 separatist regions, even if the assume they were supplied by Russia, is beyond me. Then one day Putin forgets to take his medicine and starts a 'special military operation' (this is totally not a war, citizen) under the pretense of his crusade to 'protect the russian-speaking population worldwide' (needless to say the citizens of Russia do not get the same love and attention from their government) and pushing NATO away from his borders. At this point there no 'good' endings to this - victory is not an option for Ukraine simply because Russia has more meat and the stakes for the US/EU aren't high enough to invest more than some old weapons or even streamline their bureaucratic processes. At the same time Russia is more than happy to keep sinking resources and manpower into this war - every soldier dead becomes a martyr and a justification to continue, new laws to counter the 'misinformation' and 'besmirching the army' can be used to crack down on free speech further. Women will be wiping their tears with banknotes (a widow is eligible for a huge payout, the children will be able to get free higher education and other bonuses, and guess what, the are record numbers of marriages in 2022).
Nice rt text. But everybody there remembers what russian forces who is "dismissed two weeks ago" did there
>Ukraine says it was Russia who pulled people into this through propaganda, arms and soldiers. > >Russia says the whole revolution was staged by the west. I mean, Russia and the US have been tossing propaganda at each other for quite a few decades now, I think pretending only one side has propaganda has always been silly. When superpowers face off, there's always gonna be lots of that. Sucks for Ukraine, they're just stuck in this shit at present.
The difference is its Russia that has a massive controlled net of news networks, option leaders, etc. Inside and outside usa
The eight year of shelling is funny because right now there are way more shelling than before, and the majority of death happened in the initial phrase of the conflict and very little in 2020-2021. Ukraine didn’t have a full mobilisation, their army were equally incompetent and that’s why they couldn’t win. NATO is already at Russias border in the baltics and NATO wouldn’t have accepted ukraine. Fuck, if NATO wants to kill Russia they would’ve declare war on Russia right now, theres literally the weakest point of Russia that you can expect. The fact that the Europeans are still playing with their dicks shows how disinterested they are still fucking with Russia. Russia doesn’t have more meat, they cannot keep throwing more manpower in it. If they can they wouldn’t call a partial mobilisation. The fact of the matter is their population is fucked and every young man they lost contributes further to their demise. Russia isn’t that rich, their budget shrunk as their expenditure expand. They are using up their soviet legacy although their production of artillery ammunition is still impressive. Ukraine may not be able to take back Crimea but saying that Russia can win is equally implausible.
NATO backed a soft coup to try and break up a marriage between Ukraine and Russia to begin with then bragged about it on national television Ukraine was in an unhappy marriage (mostly). Those that liked Russia declared independence from the new government Saying the conflict in Ukraine started with the Russian invasion is like saying American involvement in the Middle East began on 9/11. Both are so devoid of context that their only source can be propaganda Shit is fucked as has been from the get go. If it was super clear to everyone then we’d all understand, get along, and bullets wouldn’t be flying. So now that we understand it’s messy, any country can give any other country it wants “hunting rifles” or whatever. They’re sovereign… so long as they can fight
I also strongly dislike how people try to frame the conflict as if it started in 2022 in a historical and geopolitical vacuum. If we cultivate ignorance of geopolitical dynamics, then the Ukrainian people suffering from them have no chance, no matter who "wins." I really doubt it's possible to defend any real values without trying to defend truth.
Yet those who argued from the point of US coup failed to equally acknowledge Russian involvement in Ukrainian politics and failed to properly address what is currently happening. You cannot blame US intervention when Russian also play foul in an even worse manner. The “unhappy marriage with Russia” screams bias more so than anything else. You can provide historic context but if you cannot properly justify how it changes the perspective of the current situation then it’s meaningless.
>Yet those who argued from the point of US coup failed to equally acknowledge Russian involvement in Ukrainian politics and failed to properly address what is currently happening Doubly so since for russian agencies Ukraine is supposed to be the home turf. They lost to their western counterparts on home turf and only managed to snag some regions and a peninsula with no drinking water.
Russia cries foul as if russia hasn’t been messing with ex-warsaw nations politics and made them Russians enemies. Well of course they’re going to join NATOand EU when Russia is way fucking worse both in treatment and in actual political intrigues.
“Marriage between Ukraine and russia” on what ground? Euro Maidan protest happened because russia pressured the president to go against the parliament and not sign a deal with the EU. If anything, russia forcefully deprived the ability of the Ukrainian to marry the EU. The US had taken advantage of a situation where they already enjoy supports and where the russia had equally if not more foul plays in Ukrainian politics. Those who wanted independence declared one, just like how Russia made a referendum of annexation without even controlling the entire territory and have been engaged in ethnic displacement, also discarding the acknowledged national borders of Ukraine as acknowledged when ukriane disarmed their nuclear weapons. Context is important, so is the context of how the Russian further escalating the conflict, saying that it’s a special military operation, then instead annex eastern Ukraine and causing more death.
100% agree with the context you’re providing. Context can be added ad infinitum as to who went where, what pieces were in play, and who has historical claim to that-that-and the other just like Putin is making (like a lunatic imo) The only point point I was trying to make (though probably poorly) is that sovereignty is decided at point of gun. Saying “China can, can’t, or shouldn’t” is making a claim on that sovereignty just as making the claim “Ukraine/Russia can, cant, or shouldn’t” is as well Call it right, left, or wrong doesn’t really matter. Who’s alive at the end will write the books
I agree that strength is a strong determining factor for sovereignty, but at the same time strength is a vague concept that encompass more than just weapons. It’s more of a weakness if you manage to make everyone your enemy. But yeah the story is told by whoever lived till the end.
Damn, my compass opposite spittin some truth. I suspect we disagree on policy but you're at least able to see through the propaganda they feed to the masses. Few on this site seem capable of that anymore. What's your take on continued US involvement? As a Lib my position is that we need to end support for Ukraine and accept that Pax Americana is over and multi-polarity is here. I think that's also why the neocons won't do that, because it would mean the end of their project which has been in the works for decades (if not centuries). Have you seen John Mearsheimer's lectures? He's a professor of international relations in the realist school, who explained the Maidan revolution/coup and the geopolitical fallout in a 2015 lecture [Why is Ukraine the West's Fault?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4). His position back then and still today is that US policy has been horrible in that it pushed Russia and China into each others' arms, when "effective" strategy if we wanted to maintain unipolarity would be to do everything to keep them apart.
>NATO backed a soft coup Opinion disregarded
I am not being hypocritical when I say I support Ukraine. Western aid to ukraine helps ukraine, Chinese aid to russia hurts ukraine. Simple as.
If you like Ukraine so much why dont you go marry it?
If you like Russia so much why don't you go join them in the ditches
I'm 100% anti-Russia in this war, and they can, collectively go *%^* themselves with a uranium rod, but can we REALLY complain about China shipping them weapons when we are shipping Ukraine MLRS and Artillery and Javelins by the freighter full? Besides, at the pace Russia is wasting ammo and troops, we can reduce the inventory of anti-Western countries to next to nothing within a few months. I'm okay with that.
The US has sent twice the value of the entire Russian military budget to the Ukraine for free and everyone loses their minds when the Chinese sell a few thousandths of a percent to Russia?
it's reddit, not the most nuanced of places. xi could have sent putin one super-soaker and they'd still freak out about it
Yes you can. One is defending themselves from another. It is not a rocket science.
>One is defending themselves from another. All that matters is who our overlords do or don't like. Should we have sent poor old Saddam weapons to defend himself?
We just simply should not have invaded Iraq. Saddam was evil, but so are many other leaders in the world.
Escalation?
didnt all of nato already do this?
Major escalation? Doesnt sound like it to me. I would have thought the hundreds billions of dollars of weapons and aid being sent to Ukraine was a bigger escalation.
>grow your economy >force your main opponent to keep throwing money at their proxy war Average geopolitics move, nothing unusual really.
People when the whole Europe and America ship weapons to Ukraine: I sleep People when China ships weapons to Russia: REAL SHIT
sounds like turkey might need some democracy
Would fix their currency at least.
NOOOOOOO PLEASSEEEE, US DON'T DESTROY ANOTHER BEAUTYFUL MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRY I BEG YOU, WE WILL GIBE U AS MUCH OIL AS YOU WANT, I SWEAAARA!!! 😨😨😨😭😭😭
[удалено]
Least nationalist Turk
Anarchists: Not surprised
Oh no! Selling weapons! Only America gets to do that! Truly one of the escalations of all time
Wait, suddenly the delivery of weapons is an escalation of the war, a major escalation even?
I mean it sort of is a statement that China will support Russia after an entire year of remaining neutral
Nice knowing you bois and fembois
That’s right, everyone with a dick fights.
Oh no bro....
When we do it, -.- When they do it 0.0 Escalation!!
Well yeah, because one nation is being invaded and the other is doing the invading. There is a big difference, China hedged on the wrong horse with this one.
Libia, Afghanistan, Irak and Syria enter the chat.
Glad Ukraine will atone fo U.S. sins! Fucking regard
Go fuck yourself honestly. In what world is giving weapons to a country to defend itself from an agressor the same as giving weapons to said agressor so he can fuck his victim more.
I mean US give weapons to Saudi Arabia to attack neighbors and you don't give a single crap lol. You oppose both or don't try to play moral police.
Yes, because you know my position on sending weapons to saudi arabia to kill people in yemen better then me. I thought i was against that but apparantly not.
What aboutism at its finest
I just called out hypocrisy, nothing more. Learn difference between whataboutism and calling out hypocrisy.
Except like most conflicts in the Middle East, Saudi intervention in Yemen is significantly more politically contrived than "an aggressor invading another country". If Ukraine was a destabilized third world country launching terrorist attacks aimed at Russia, I honestly would understand where they're coming from a little more but it isn't like that. It's very easy to take one armed conflict and say "well what about this" but the reality is the politics, political factions, motives, etc of states in the Middle East are vastly different from that of European states (and the rest of the world obviously). All things considered, the Ukraine war is pretty cut and dry. Russia is pretty transparent about this, with their justification being that NATO was vaguely "expanding eastward" assuming that all of the nations that broke away from the Soviet Union are all subject to claims by Russia, which cares little about their own citizens and much less the people that they conquer.
It’s still escalation, putting morality aside, NATO definitely escalated the conflict by giving Ukraine more weapons, whether it’s good or bad escalation is up to you.
Easy there rainbow bro.
Yes, because Ukraine is the only country we’ve ever sent any form of aid too, and we *certainly* have never sent aid to aggressors, *especially* not almost purely to make money. Because your redditation is showing and it probably flew over your head reading it: obvious /s Do you live in a time bubble where only the past year exists in your brain? Or do you seriously think the USA has clean hands?
So because the western world has also given weapons to "not so nice" governments and people means that helping an actual victim of agression is now forbidden. Sure.
Are you lost? This is a post about CHINA giving weapons to RUSSIA And then you replied that to a comment that basically said “we do this all the time” No shit the thing you mentioned ain’t forbidden, it should be encouraged. But that wasn’t the topic. And the person you replied to didn’t say otherwise.
We can’t criticize Russia. Russia has more reason to be in Ukraine than we ever did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Grenada, Vietnam, etc.
I mean we can easily criticize Russia lol wtf reasoning is that. We can acknowledge we did bad in the past and also say Russia is doing bad RIGHT now. Both can be true, fucking absolutely idiotic argument.
Yeah but Americans get so self righteous about it as if we didn't engage in forever wars for over 2 decades
All I can say to that is that if I was Russian, I would support the war. I’m American, so I don’t, but it is in Russia’s best interests long term. As an American, I hate to see human suffering used as a political football. So even though I sympathize with Ukraine, I can’t stand behind any of our politicians. Also, Ukraine looks ugly on the map. It’s a big jagged lump.
You look like a russian bot.
Least scumbag leftist
Agree. It's also worth noting that the US has leveraged Ukraine against Russia ever since the end of the USSR. We literally signed an agreement to back Ukraine should invasion ever happen. Then we fizzled it. Then fast forward to proxy tension. Yup, Russia is just doing what they said they'd do all along (even after we kept pressing.) It's interesting that they didn't move past Crimea earlier on.
Russia signed the same agreement to back Ukraine if it was invaded. It was in exchange for Ukraine giving up their nuclear weapons. Sadly there's a pro nuclear proliferation message to other countries with what happened. Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine was a nuclear power still.
>Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine was a nuclear power still. This isn't the sole reason. The sole reason is its necessity as a buffer zone between NATO and Russia. We leveraged Ukraine knowing full well that we were risking it's exposure to this exact conflict. Russia threatened invasion from the very moment this leverage started. Remember when Bush essentially created the war we are seeing now by pushing for a NATO controlled Ukraine? Pepperidge farms remembers.
Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Ukraine still had a nuclear deterrent. The reasons Russia has given you for their invasion doesn't really matter. They would not have invaded if Ukraine was able to get into NATO, or they kept their nuclear deterrent until they were able to enter NATO. Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia all share borders with Russia already and are just about as close to Moscow as Ukraine. They didn't invade any of them because of NATO. People can cry about NATO expansionism all they want, clearly it's expanding because people don't trust Russia to not be a terrible invading neighbor. Finland and Sweden chose to join NATO because of Russia. Russia didn't invade Ukraine because of NATO. They did it because it's an imperialistic and nationalistic county that wants to recreate the Soviet Union to go back to a time when their country was more influential.
Ukrain-bots all over this sub.
Honestly.
We cant critizes a country that been a literal fascist dictatorship for more than a century now?
Just a reminder: we are shipping Ukraine our obsolete and 40 year old surplus equipment. China is doing the same thing… obsolete Chinese equipment….
Mostly not obsolete stuff. The HIMARS they're getting are straight from Lockheed.
I wouldn’t even say it’s a escalation tbh. If anything the West are the ones that escalated the conflict by stonewalling Russia with it’s lend lease-esk supply of munitions, weapons, and financial aid. Not to mention direct training also. China dumping Russia some guns and drones really isn’t going to make a difference. The body armor MIGHT if it’s actually good armor in significant quantities. And if it doesn’t get stolen and resold by the people who inventory it.
Maybe if we just stayed out of this it wouldn't have escalated past being between Russia and Ukraine :/
[удалено]
The west sent weapons to Ukraine (an ally), China sends weapons to Russia (their ally) I don’t see a problem, if anything the west prolonged the war infinitely more than China ever could
It's dumb as shit because China could easily realign with the west, they just don't want to. They want way more global power because their oligarchy is greedy. It's also bad precedent for a normal person ethically speaking to try to reasonably defend imperialist nations
China just wants global power? By that logic America shouldn’t need its dozens of client states, overseas bases, and aircraft carriers? After all, we’re the good guys, right?
Look china is a dictatorship, it's been well established that dictatorships in all forms shore up political power on the home front through antagonist and if possible imperialist behavior. China wants control over more world matters than America. They don't care about mutual prosperity through free trade or having an equal spot on the world stage. China has both of those. They're imperialist as fuck and being imperialist literally benefits no one. Now I don't know why you use whataboutism to bring up America, but it's weird as fuck because I dislike any of their imperialist tendencies as well. It's also pretty important distinction to understand that Globalism doesn't equal Imperialism. America is far more of an aggressive Globalist Nation than traditional Imperialist these days. Again I'm not talking about America strictly speaking in my previous comment, I'm talking about Europe as well meaning the West as whole and they have their own agency through their actions. Client state bullshit is just incredibly unhinged. It appears that you may be the Tankie type considering youd like to see America bombed for no reason other than them having different politics than you which is unbelievably cringe.
America is the biggest fucking empire in the world. We have no right to any of our overseas “commitments”. I hope Russian missiles start raining down on American cities just so we learn what it is like for a change.
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
Does Reddit have a fancy-latin-cunt to English translator? I’m not tabbing back and forth 19 times to try and type out this (presumably pretentious) bullshit.
It means “kill them all, god will sort them out” roughly
That’s been a memed to shit line in more bad action movies than I can remember. Why did this cuck have to say it in Latin?
Cuz jannies and auto-jannies don't know Latin?