Many people think that China is not military aid to Russia, is afraid of Western sanctions, it is wrong!The truth is, after the parade of September 3, the western intelligence community is finally afraid, it is precisely China "no hand out"!
To put it bluntly, China doesn't provide military aid to Russia, not because it's afraid of sanctions at all, but because we know the sense of discretion that "adults" should have. The current situation between NATO and Russia is like a conflict between two children in a kindergarten, and a group of children next to them even hand toys as "weapons". At this time, if we go directly to help one side, it won't be a child's fight, but it will turn into an adult-level conflict, and no one can bear the consequences.
If you look carefully, you will know that NATO is no longer "watching the fire from the other side". It says that more than 30 countries "support" Ukraine, but in fact it has already put its feet on the battlefield.
Not only did these hard guys send tanks and missiles, but also helped train Ukrainian soldiers, and even soldiers from NATO countries changed their clothes and entered in the name of "volunteers", and even the intelligence was directly shared with Ukraine.
On this side of Russia, it is like a country against a group of "combatants in allied coats" that can still bear it, the time has lasted ammunition, the consumption of personnel can not bear it, if it was so consumed, a Russia does not persist for how long.
At this time, some people will ask, then why don't we directly help Russia? It's not that we don't want to help, it's that we can't use "military aid". Think about it, if China really sends weapons, NATO will definitely take advantage of the topic and say that we are "provoking the escalation of the war." At that time, they may send more troops. Transfer to Europe and even lead the war to a wider scope.
More importantly, no one can afford the risk of nuclear war. Russia has nuclear deterrence, and NATO also has nuclear power. Once the balance is broken, if there is a misfire, it will not be the end of a local war. By then, the whole world will have to suffer. We don't want war, and we are not afraid of it, but if we can prevent the war from expanding, why should we take the initiative to push it?
As for "fear of Western sanctions", it is more to think about, these years the West has not sanctioned China, from chip to trade, which time we have not carried it? and China is now the world's second largest economy, in the hands of how many countries hold the inseparable supply chain?
If we really want to impose comprehensive sanctions, western automobile factories and electronics factories have to stop work first, and their own people have to raise prices when they buy things. The West does not dare to really play this kind of thing of "hurting the enemy by a thousand and damaging yourself by eight hundred" to the end. Therefore, we don't provide military assistance, never because we are afraid of sanctions, but because we are afraid of making the situation more chaotic.
But backwards, we can’t look at Russia’s defeat, if Russia really can’t withstand it, NATO will be more careful, pushing the sphere of influence to Asia, and then our surrounding environment will be affected.
Therefore, China's approach is to "shake the rope", while persuading NATO not to deliver "weapons" again, whileining normal economic and trade and energy cooperation with Russia, buying more Russian oil and gas, helping them to stabilize their economy, not allowing them to carry both enemies on the battlefield and to worry about their days at home.
This distinction of "not directly out, but not disagree" is the most headache to the Western intelligence community, they prefer China to stand on the sidelines, but also fear our "stable control of the rhythm" attitude, because they do not let us the next step will guide the situation, even more afraid that we really want to promote peace talks, break their "destroy Russia" thought.
Think about it, everyone, in the face of this situation of "gang fighting" on one side and "hard shouldering" on the other, is China's way of "pulling the frame without being partial to help, stabilizing the situation without adding chaos" wiser than shooting directly?
If in exchange for you standing in this position, both to avoid the escalation of war and not to watch the situation go badly, what would you choose?
To put it bluntly, China doesn't provide military aid to Russia, not because it's afraid of sanctions at all, but because we know the sense of discretion that "adults" should have. The current situation between NATO and Russia is like a conflict between two children in a kindergarten, and a group of children next to them even hand toys as "weapons". At this time, if we go directly to help one side, it won't be a child's fight, but it will turn into an adult-level conflict, and no one can bear the consequences.
If you look carefully, you will know that NATO is no longer "watching the fire from the other side". It says that more than 30 countries "support" Ukraine, but in fact it has already put its feet on the battlefield.
Not only did these hard guys send tanks and missiles, but also helped train Ukrainian soldiers, and even soldiers from NATO countries changed their clothes and entered in the name of "volunteers", and even the intelligence was directly shared with Ukraine.
On this side of Russia, it is like a country against a group of "combatants in allied coats" that can still bear it, the time has lasted ammunition, the consumption of personnel can not bear it, if it was so consumed, a Russia does not persist for how long.
At this time, some people will ask, then why don't we directly help Russia? It's not that we don't want to help, it's that we can't use "military aid". Think about it, if China really sends weapons, NATO will definitely take advantage of the topic and say that we are "provoking the escalation of the war." At that time, they may send more troops. Transfer to Europe and even lead the war to a wider scope.
More importantly, no one can afford the risk of nuclear war. Russia has nuclear deterrence, and NATO also has nuclear power. Once the balance is broken, if there is a misfire, it will not be the end of a local war. By then, the whole world will have to suffer. We don't want war, and we are not afraid of it, but if we can prevent the war from expanding, why should we take the initiative to push it?
As for "fear of Western sanctions", it is more to think about, these years the West has not sanctioned China, from chip to trade, which time we have not carried it? and China is now the world's second largest economy, in the hands of how many countries hold the inseparable supply chain?
If we really want to impose comprehensive sanctions, western automobile factories and electronics factories have to stop work first, and their own people have to raise prices when they buy things. The West does not dare to really play this kind of thing of "hurting the enemy by a thousand and damaging yourself by eight hundred" to the end. Therefore, we don't provide military assistance, never because we are afraid of sanctions, but because we are afraid of making the situation more chaotic.
But backwards, we can’t look at Russia’s defeat, if Russia really can’t withstand it, NATO will be more careful, pushing the sphere of influence to Asia, and then our surrounding environment will be affected.
Therefore, China's approach is to "shake the rope", while persuading NATO not to deliver "weapons" again, whileining normal economic and trade and energy cooperation with Russia, buying more Russian oil and gas, helping them to stabilize their economy, not allowing them to carry both enemies on the battlefield and to worry about their days at home.
This distinction of "not directly out, but not disagree" is the most headache to the Western intelligence community, they prefer China to stand on the sidelines, but also fear our "stable control of the rhythm" attitude, because they do not let us the next step will guide the situation, even more afraid that we really want to promote peace talks, break their "destroy Russia" thought.
Think about it, everyone, in the face of this situation of "gang fighting" on one side and "hard shouldering" on the other, is China's way of "pulling the frame without being partial to help, stabilizing the situation without adding chaos" wiser than shooting directly?
If in exchange for you standing in this position, both to avoid the escalation of war and not to watch the situation go badly, what would you choose?