EU should give a clear promise whether it'll join in US' anti-China alliance or not. So China could decide whether it'll offer aids to Russia

[Nan Yang]

Around the world, there are only two countries that have the will and power to fight US now, China and Russia. It doesn't matter whether they want to do so or not. US has made its enemy list. As a result, China and Russia have to support each other. No other choice. Each can not afford to lose the other. China and Russia are back to back allies.

Obviously US wants to topple Russia first through proxy war. Once there is a sign that Russia is going to lose the war, China should immediately ask EU countries to give China an official promise. If US asks, will they join in US' anti-China alliance? Any uncertain answer will be seen as “ they will". China should tell the world that China will offer aids to Russia for self safety concern. China doesn't support Russia's military actions in Ukraine. But if China is 100% sure that the west will economically or even militarily attack China after Russia falls, it will be utterly stupid to let that happen without doing anything.

Of course, even if EU gives China a promise, China still should help Russia in economy sector.

European words are not worth the breath it took to say it.

 

[DF41]

War with USA is coming .
Never doubt that

USA having public war games on Taiwan , and that USA win

https://twitter.com/x/status/1526032437838422016

 

[Viet]

Nonsense, I didn't hear any Chinese people want to participate in this war in China.
The Russians don't need Chinese troops either. They just need China not to participate in Western sanctions against Russia, that's enough.

China supports Putin’s narratives: Nazi, fascism, oppression in Ukraine, NATO expansion is the reason for war. The first step is made.

 

[Menthol]

Around the world, there are only two countries that have the will and power to fight US now, China and Russia. It doesn't matter whether they want to do so or not. US has made its enemy list. As a result, China and Russia have to support each other. No other choice. Each can not afford to lose the other. China and Russia are back to back allies.

Obviously US wants to topple Russia first through proxy war. Once there is a sign that Russia is going to lose the war, China should immediately ask EU countries to give China an official promise. If US asks, will they join in US' anti-China alliance? Any uncertain answer will be seen as “ they will". China should tell the world that China will offer aids to Russia for self safety concern. China doesn't support Russia's military actions in Ukraine. But if China is 100% sure that the west will economically or even militarily attack China after Russia falls, it will be utterly stupid to let that happen without doing anything.

Of course, even if EU gives China a promise, China still should help Russia in economy sector.

When Russia is gone.

You will see the real face EU.

Not so surprising actually.

 

[Wergeland]

Around the world, there are only two countries that have the will and power to fight US now, China and Russia. It doesn't matter whether they want to do so or not. US has made its enemy list. As a result, China and Russia have to support each other. No other choice. Each can not afford to lose the other. China and Russia are back to back allies.

Obviously US wants to topple Russia first through proxy war. Once there is a sign that Russia is going to lose the war, China should immediately ask EU countries to give China an official promise. If US asks, will they join in US' anti-China alliance? Any uncertain answer will be seen as “ they will". China should tell the world that China will offer aids to Russia for self safety concern. China doesn't support Russia's military actions in Ukraine. But if China is 100% sure that the west will economically or even militarily attack China after Russia falls, it will be utterly stupid to let that happen without doing anything.

Of course, even if EU gives China a promise, China still should help Russia in economy sector.

EU wont give China a straightforward Yes or No answer. Its easy to understand why! the EU wants to carve out a position for itself as the dominant force, atleast thats its long term dream. But in order to do that, it cannot abandon neither the US or China.

EU will try to ride both horses as far as possible but If it iforced to choose, it will choose America as ally.

 

[Wergeland]

iMO the best way for China, Russia and EU, is to sit down negotiate a end to the Ukraine War. In that way, these three power centers will have control over the situation, making America loose influence and benefits of this conflict.

 

[dbc]

China can help turn the war in Russia's favour but it needs to do the following:


1. Give Russia 40-50 J-10Cs so that Russia has total dominance of the air. 4-6 weeks should be enough to train Russian pilots in how to use them and anyway it is so advanced that the Russian pilots just need to put them up in the air and use its AESA radar and PL-15 missile to shoot any Ukrainian plane and drone out of the sky with ease

2. Supply drones and precision guided munitions. Russia needs these for intel and accurate targeting of Ukrainian tanks and armour.

3. Give the Russians around 50 of their PCL-181 SPGs that can fire accurate shells out to 72km. These guns would totally dominate any Western supplied ones that the Ukrainians have been given.


The fact that China has so far not done this is testament that China is not supporting the Russians like the West is supporting the Ukrainians.

lol, Russia's problem isn't hardware. Short of sending troops to Ukraine there is nothing China can do to save Russia from an embarrassing defeat in Ukraine,

 

[帅的一匹]

It’s quite stupid to ask promise from Europe counties to not gang up with USA against China, it make nonsense as asking jackals not to harass an isolated lion.

we nuke them to ashes before we falls.

iMO the best way for China, Russia and EU, is to sit down negotiate a end to the Ukraine War. In that way, these three power centers will have control over the situation, making America loose influence and benefits of this conflict.

Impossible, Russians has been stuck out there in Ukraine. USA wanna a long lasting war in Ukraine in the coming years, 40 billions aid been planned.

 

[dbc]

iMO the best way for China, Russia and EU, is to sit down negotiate a end to the Ukraine War. In that way, these three power centers will have control over the situation, making America loose influence and benefits of this conflict.

...you clearly haven't a clue of Russian history. There is so much historic bad blood between all three parties. The Russians have coveted western European lands even before the US came into existence. Then there is Napoleon and Hilter both traumatized Russia and left her deeply fearful almost paranoid of W.Europe. Then there is China, the country that the Russians wanted to nuke. W.Europeans and the Russians have a history of abuse against China, there is no way for them to reconcile in good faith.Neither can ever be convinced the Chinese have truly moved on and forgiven the century of humiliation.

 

[Wergeland]

...you clearly haven't a clue of Russian history. There is so much historic bad blood between all three parties. The Russians have coveted western European lands even before the US came into existence. Then there is Napoleon and Hilter both traumatized Russia and left her deeply fearful almost paranoid of W.Europe. Then there is China, the country that the Russians wanted to nuke. W.Europeans and the Russians have a history of abuse against China, there is no way for them to reconcile in good faith.Neither can ever be convinced the Chinese have truly moved on and forgiven the century of humiliation.

… and thats why its not allowed to propose that they should overcome evt. disagreements and NEGOTIATE a end to the war?

US will be good regardless of this war ends today or not. Its the other three who is gonna suffer the most if war linger on.

 

[DF41]

… and thats why its not allowed to propose that they should overcome evt. disagreements and NEGOTIATE a end to the war?

How can negotiations be possible with USA known to break and break promises and USA signature not worth the ink used to sign anything at all!

How many times will you be lied to before you never believe in that person?






NOT JUST POMPEO
PRATICALLY ALL AMERICANS IN POSITION OF POWER AS WELL

AND FURTHER SEEN IN WHAT USA DONE AND DOING TO THE WORLD

 

[Beidou2020]

China should definitely be cooperating with Russia on intelligence sharing to destroy the NATO weapons. Once Russia controls Novorossiya, they will end the war. Ukraine will then be a landlocked country and lose their agricultural and industrial regions. Controlling Novorossiya is the end game.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Again, I am asking you for an official source as for Chinese ore are more expensive than Chinese import from Australia.

I am not asking you how much Iron Ore Chinese produce.

Also, Ford class is not steel hull, it's carbon fibre or glass fibre I forgot which one, so no, you cannot produce 3200 Ford Class for the iron you have.

I'm holding you accountable to this obvious false statement. Ford class aircraft carrier is steel hulled and NOT made of any form of fiberglass or carbon fiber.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-396.pdf

Key word: HSLA-115, HSLA-65 steels

Aircraft Carrier Photo Index: PCU GERALD R. FORD (CVN-78)

www.navsource.org

The first piece of steel, a 15-ton plate for a side shell unit of CVN-78, the first ship of the CVN-21 program, is cut at the Northrop Grumman Newport News shipyard, August 11, 2005.

https://inf.news/en/military/a8a2871d30da191d7105e735f99e5d87.html

Ford-class aircraft carrier decks use HSLA-115 steel with a yield strength of 795 MPa, but its thickness is only around 55 mm.

 

[jhungary]

I'm holding you accountable to this obvious false statement. Ford class aircraft carrier is steel hulled and NOT made of any form of fiberglass or carbon fiber.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-396.pdf

Key word: HSLA-115, HSLA-65 steels

Aircraft Carrier Photo Index: PCU GERALD R. FORD (CVN-78)

www.navsource.org

https://inf.news/en/military/a8a2871d30da191d7105e735f99e5d87.html

Do you even understand the different between Hull and Deck?? and what HSLA 115 and 65 were being used??

This is from page 22 of the GAO report

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-396.pdf

The shipbuilder’s use of HSLA 65 thin steel plating for ship decks

HSLA 115 completed prototype and first article qualification testing in fiscal years 2007 and 2008, respectively. The Navy has assessed the system as mature since 2007. Since then, the shipbuilder has successfully constructed CVN 78 flight deck sections using HSLA 115.

What Is The Hull Of A Ship? Parts, Designs, & Types

The hull of a ship is the most important as well as the most noticeable part of the ship. It is the watertight part of any vessel or even boat.

www.maritimemanual.com

Deck (ship) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In short, a hull is the entire watertight structure of a boat, a deck is to cover the hull in order to strengthen its structural integrity, a hull may not have a deck to cover the hull (in dinghy or most sail boat or row boat). And I was talking about hull, not deck.

In the old days, carrier used wood for their deck, but steel for their hull, because using armoured steel deck on an aircraft carrier is going to be top heavy, result in them being capsize. When Jet age come, you cannot use wood in deck anymore, jet flame will burn the deck off and you need light weight reinforced steel to be able to insulate the heat.

Steel would have been perferred hull material in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but it was replaced by Composite Material since then. Older ship like Nimitz built in the 70s may still use steel for their hull, it's no longer a material of choice since 90s

Ford Aircraft carrier is built twin hulls one for structure (Shell) and one for Armor the shell wrap around the armor, nobody in ship building industry uses "cast iron steel:" hull anymore because you will add a whole lot of weigh on the side and eat up the waterline, the armor may have steel composite in it (Most strengthened armor do), I don't remember the exact composition and even if I do know I probably cannot tell you.

Stop pretend to be internet expert when you know shit on the topic and only copy them from internet. My dad was Navy for almost 20 years and served on board a carrier during Vietnam, my brother was a Marine and fly FA-18 off USS Carl Vinson and my cousin still active duty with the USCG. When you can't even distinguish the term Hull and Deck and started to call people out, dude, this is embarrassing even for you

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Do you even understand the different between Hull and Deck?? and what HSLA 115 and 65 were being used??

This is from page 22 of the GAO report

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-396.pdf

What Is The Hull Of A Ship? Parts, Designs, & Types

The hull of a ship is the most important as well as the most noticeable part of the ship. It is the watertight part of any vessel or even boat.

www.maritimemanual.com

Deck (ship) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In short, a hull is the entire watertight structure of a boat, a deck is to cover the hull in order to strengthen its structural integrity, a hull may not have a deck to cover the hull (in dinghy or most sail boat or row boat). And I was talking about hull, not deck.

In the old days, carrier used wood for their deck, but steel for their hull, because using armoured steel deck on an aircraft carrier is going to be top heavy, result in them being capsize. When Jet age come, you cannot use wood in deck anymore, jet flame will burn the deck off and you need light weight reinforced steel to be able to insulate the heat.

Steel would have been perferred hull material in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but it was replaced by Composite Material since then. Older ship like Nimitz built in the 70s may still use steel for their hull, it's no longer a material of choice since 90s

Ford Aircraft carrier is built twin hulls one for structure (Shell) and one for Armor the shell wrap around the armor, nobody in ship building industry uses "cast iron steel:" hull anymore because you will add a whole lot of weigh on the side and eat up the waterline, the armor may have steel composite in it (Most strengthened armor do), I don't remember the exact composition and even if I do know I probably cannot tell you.

Stop pretend to be internet expert when you know shit on the topic and only copy them from internet. My dad was Navy for almost 20 years and served on board a carrier during Vietnam, my brother was a Marine and fly FA-18 off USS Carl Vinson and my cousin still active duty with the USCG. When you can't even distinguish the term Hull and Deck and started to call people out, dude, this is embarrassing even for you

You can easily prove me wrong: just show me a single source that states any large warship hull is made of fiberglass and in particular the Ford class is made of fiberglass. I'll be waiting. But I know you can't because no such source exists. And not only does no source exist, making a large warship hull from fiberglass flies in the face of logic, of design choices, of common sense engineering, of history, and of proven fact. It is pure nonsense.

You must've googled something about recreational boats and found that they were made of fiberglass so you thought omg this shit is high tech, warships must be made from it too! But you have no idea why they are made from fiberglass, what the limitations of fiberglass are, and why that attribute is useless for warships relative to its drawbacks.

Now, for sources, pg. 8 of the GAO report, section "block fabrication", refers to welding metal plates of block sections, which are the modular hull sections, as noted in the following sentence. And then it refers to welding those metal block sections, to each other, to form the hull. Have you ever heard of welding metal to fiberglass? And the GAO article furthermore corroborates the news article here, referring to metal plates being assembled.

US navy only has metal hulls for large ships: steel and aluminum (for LCS only). Wasp class amphibs, a close analog of aircraft carriers, is made of steel as well. This is not only well documented from it using 21000 tons of steel, but is further proven by the fact that the Bonhomme Richard fire did not cause a further fire or melting, as fiberglass typically used in boating, a polymer reinforced fiberglass composite, usually softens at around 200C, far below the temperature of a fire. Hmm, I wonder why navy ships aren't made from fiberglass.

The only fiberglass ships were LCVPs. Those were from the 1960's and tiny. You will never be able to prove that any navy ship over 1000 tons has ever been made from fiberglass. Because the largest fiberglass naval vessel ever made was only 890 tons, a far cry from 100000 tons for the Ford class.