Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 452 posts

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#281

Post by _ph_ »

jessaustin wrote: post #151
saiya-jin wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so sure about that market part... its 160 million of mostly poor folks who are becoming massively more poor as we write here. That's not so lucrative market compared to ie Europe with 500+ million wealthier citizens. But yeah Chinese cheap stuff will not have much competition.

China can trade with Russia as much as it wants. Ukraine might sanction them, but no one else is going to cut off China.

The point in the previous comment was, that there is little China can get from a trade with Russia other than natural resources. Russia is quickly running out of foreign money.

While the West cannot "cut off" China as too much manufacturing has moved there, supporting Russia in this already has an impact on the reception of Chinese brands in the West. Perhaps less so in the US, but so far Chinese brands are quite popular in the EU. This could change quickly. Also this encourages to reduce the dependencies on China.

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#282

Post by JohnHaugeland »

qiskit wrote: post #174
hkmaxpro wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do your links [1][2] support the claim that Ukraine is developing “biomilitary activities” (as claimed in the title of the Global Times article)? They seem to point to medical research to fight against diseases, rather than “biomilitary activities”.

> They seem to point to medical research to fight against diseases, rather than “biomilitary activities”. They are dual use research. Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons. Research for rockets is the same for icbms. It's why we are so keen on preventing iran from developing their nuclear energy program. It's why we are worried about north korea's "space" program. The same…

> Just like research for nuclear energy is the same as research for nuclear weapons.

This is absurdly untrue.

This is an error to the level of claiming that programming language research is the same as video game manual writing, and then trying to justify it as "but they both involve computers"

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#283

Post by actuator »

dahdum wrote: post #266
actuator wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those cancerous Twitter login modals are not letting me read the whole thread but I don't agree that China has much to lose here. They get a far weaker Russia much more dependent on them now economically. Russia is rich in fossil fuels which China lacks and has some advantages in defence and space tech which China can easily get their hands on. CCP might not be that confident about taking Taiwan now but they get a ma…

China is ascendant on the international stage, with trade and diplomatic relations growing rapidly. Russia is near inconsequential compared to their existing economy, trade, and clout. China is at risk of becoming, as someone else put it, the leader of the gang of international misfits. Meanwhile the West is pulling rapidly together while neutral countries are skewing towards their way. I can’t claim to be an expert,…

> Russia is near inconsequential compared to their existing economy, trade, and clout.

Russia is inconsequential compared to their trade and economy but not clout.

But looking at the overall figures is just partial picture. China imported over 10M barrels of oil per day last year. [1] At current prices of Brent, i.e. an import bill of $1.4 billion per day or $500 billion per year. Imagine getting a discount on that.

Also, Russia still has tech advantages over China in some areas, the best fighter aircraft in PLA's force uses Russian made engines. They rely on Russia for their Air defense systems, the S400.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/chinas-crude-oil...

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#284

Post by malcolmgreaves »

ZYinMD wrote: post #274

> ...and downplay Russia's actions in launching an unprovoked invasion I would argue it is not "unprovoked". By incorporating Ukraine, NATO will have a direct adjacent border with Russia head to head, and missiles will be placed along the border, right at Russia's doorstep, what a stupid strategy for world peace. Putin has told us over many years it's unacceptable for the Russians. Think when USSR tried to place miss…

Stop spreading Russian propaganda.

It's absolutely 100% Russian aggression. They've invaded a sovereign country that they had a treaty with to not attack.

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#285

Post by ncr100 »

ZYinMD wrote: post #274

> ...and downplay Russia's actions in launching an unprovoked invasion I would argue it is not "unprovoked". By incorporating Ukraine, NATO will have a direct adjacent border with Russia head to head, and missiles will be placed along the border, right at Russia's doorstep, what a stupid strategy for world peace. Putin has told us over many years it's unacceptable for the Russians. Think when USSR tried to place miss…

I disagree.

Who is likely to invade a neighbor, Poland or Russia?

Not Poland. So, not provocative.

And Russia is definitely doing an unprovoked invasion.

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#286

Post by zarzavat »

throwawaycities wrote: post #255
ksec wrote: post #161

>Good WSJ article on Russia vs. China. In a nutshell, China miscalculated the situation. They will likely look to limit their bet (on Russia) for fear of becoming Russia 2.0 to the West. [1] The tweet is from Neil Cybart and WSJ. You may know him as one of the more accurate Apple analysts. And most people still to this day think either China miscalculated it, or China's official stance is somewhat unclear. ( Paul Gra…

> And most people still to this day think either China miscalculated it, or China's official stance is somewhat unclear. ( Paul Graham ) I was actually surprised China didn’t vote against the UN Resolution by the Generally Assembly condemning Russia’s violation of the UN Charter by the use of force and violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Though China was 1 of 35 Countries to abstain on the vote, the fact th…

China has several territorial disputes with other countries and several regions that want to break away. Russia’s blatant violation of another country’s sovereignty is completely against China’s foreign policy objectives. It’s not surprising at all that they abstained, and Russia was tripping (to use the diplomatic term) if they thought that China would support them.

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#287

Post by sega_sai »

ZYinMD wrote: post #274

> ...and downplay Russia's actions in launching an unprovoked invasion I would argue it is not "unprovoked". By incorporating Ukraine, NATO will have a direct adjacent border with Russia head to head, and missiles will be placed along the border, right at Russia's doorstep, what a stupid strategy for world peace. Putin has told us over many years it's unacceptable for the Russians. Think when USSR tried to place miss…

WTF are you talking about ? NATO explicitly said that it has no plans to incorporate Ukraine. And incorporating Ukraine was not possible given the disputed territory of Crimea. Your are just repeating Putin's propaganda here.

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#288

Post by JohnHaugeland »

maratc wrote: post #115
hkmaxpro wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do your links [1][2] support the claim that Ukraine is developing “biomilitary activities” (as claimed in the title of the Global Times article)? They seem to point to medical research to fight against diseases, rather than “biomilitary activities”.

Genuine question: Why would the US Department of Defence fund "medical research to fight against diseases"?

You're asking this during Covid?

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#289

Post by sidibe »

ZYinMD wrote: post #274

> ...and downplay Russia's actions in launching an unprovoked invasion I would argue it is not "unprovoked". By incorporating Ukraine, NATO will have a direct adjacent border with Russia head to head, and missiles will be placed along the border, right at Russia's doorstep, what a stupid strategy for world peace. Putin has told us over many years it's unacceptable for the Russians. Think when USSR tried to place miss…

Please look at a map. NATO already has several borders with Russia.

Re: China's state media buys Meta ads pushing Russia's line on war

#290

Post by ashwagary »

stale2002 wrote: post #223
somenameforme wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The existence of biolabs is completely genuine. You can read more (from a .gov site) here [1]. They seem to have removed the fact-sheets from the site, but you can still access them on archive.org, like here [2]. The fact sheets don't have anything especially seedy on them but do confirm that the labs were funded by the US Department of Defense, and do work with pathogens. Point being you don't need the quotes. There…

This "implication" of what the fake news propaganda articles are trying to say, is that there is some WMD superweapon being developered by Ukraine to genetically target Russians. Like that disease in the new James Bond movie. That is the part that is clearly the fake propaganda. The US and Ukraine are not working together to design a disease meant to genetically target Russians, like from the movie James Bond.

Ignoring the James Bond qualifier makes this scenario completely plausable. It is not clear that the US would not weaponize bioagents as one of the leading bioweapon manufacturers in human history.
Post reply on HN