"The European Union’s foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell has dismissed last week’s high-profile summit with China as a “dialogue of the deaf”, saying that Chinese leaders “did not want to talk about Ukraine”.

In a stronger than usual rebuke of Beijing by Brussels’ top diplomat, Borrell told the European Parliament on Tuesday evening that Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and President Xi Jinping wanted to “instead focus on the positive things”.

“China wanted to set aside our differences on Ukraine, they didn’t want to talk about Ukraine. They didn’t want to talk about human rights and other stuff and instead focus on positive things,” Borrell said during a fiery debate on China in Strasbourg, France.

“This was not exactly a dialogue, maybe a dialogue of the deaf … we could not talk about Ukraine a lot, and we did not agree on anything else,” he continued.

"The first bilateral summit in almost two years took place via video link on Friday, with Borrell joined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Charles Michel.

The European side entered the talks determined to press China on its position on the Russian war against Ukraine, which it has failed to condemn.

Borrell confirmed again that the Chinese leadership did not commit to withhold military or economic support from Russia.

“The Chinese side stuck to their general statements of wishing to see peace, we are a peaceful people, we don’t invade others, asking for de-escalation, but avoiding specific commitments or avoiding any sort of line on Russia,” he told lawmakers.

China, however, “does have a red line” on Russia, Borrell said, “which is weapons of mass destruction”."

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3173188/eu-china-summit-was-dialogue-deaf-says-top-brussels-diplomat

On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 9:05:03 PM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> "The European Union’s foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell has dismissed last week’s high-profile summit with China as a “dialogue of the deaf”, saying that Chinese leaders “did not want to talk about Ukraine”.
>
> In a stronger than usual rebuke of Beijing by Brussels’ top diplomat, Borrell told the European Parliament on Tuesday evening that Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and President Xi Jinping wanted to “instead focus on the positive things”.
>
> “China wanted to set aside our differences on Ukraine, they didn’t want to talk about Ukraine. They didn’t want to talk about human rights and other stuff and instead focus on positive things,” Borrell said during a fiery debate on China in Strasbourg, France.
>
> “This was not exactly a dialogue, maybe a dialogue of the deaf … we could not talk about Ukraine a lot, and we did not agree on anything else,” he continued.
>
> "The first bilateral summit in almost two years took place via video link on Friday, with Borrell joined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Charles Michel.
>
> The European side entered the talks determined to press China on its position on the Russian war against Ukraine, which it has failed to condemn.
>
> Borrell confirmed again that the Chinese leadership did not commit to withhold military or economic support from Russia.
>
> “The Chinese side stuck to their general statements of wishing to see peace, we are a peaceful people, we don’t invade others, asking for de-escalation, but avoiding specific commitments or avoiding any sort of line on Russia,” he told lawmakers.
>
> China, however, “does have a red line” on Russia, Borrell said, “which is weapons of mass destruction”."
>
> https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3173188/eu-china-summit-was-dialogue-deaf-says-top-brussels-diplomat

China doesn't want to engage in Ukraine is to avoid into any mistaken understanding by the EU foreign affairs and sending back their analysis to presume what Xi had said to them. It is best to avoid the topic of Ukraine as it can be construed with BS

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:59:10 PM UTC-4, stoney wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 9:05:03 PM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > "The European Union’s foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell has dismissed last week’s high-profile summit with China as a “dialogue of the deaf”, saying that Chinese leaders “did not want to talk about Ukraine”.
> >
> > In a stronger than usual rebuke of Beijing by Brussels’ top diplomat, Borrell told the European Parliament on Tuesday evening that Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and President Xi Jinping wanted to “instead focus on the positive things”.
> >
> > “China wanted to set aside our differences on Ukraine, they didn’t want to talk about Ukraine. They didn’t want to talk about human rights and other stuff and instead focus on positive things,” Borrell said during a fiery debate on China in Strasbourg, France.
> >
> > “This was not exactly a dialogue, maybe a dialogue of the deaf … we could not talk about Ukraine a lot, and we did not agree on anything else,” he continued.
> >
> > "The first bilateral summit in almost two years took place via video link on Friday, with Borrell joined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Charles Michel.
> >
> > The European side entered the talks determined to press China on its position on the Russian war against Ukraine, which it has failed to condemn.
> >
> > Borrell confirmed again that the Chinese leadership did not commit to withhold military or economic support from Russia.
> >
> > “The Chinese side stuck to their general statements of wishing to see peace, we are a peaceful people, we don’t invade others, asking for de-escalation, but avoiding specific commitments or avoiding any sort of line on Russia,” he told lawmakers.
> >
> > China, however, “does have a red line” on Russia, Borrell said, “which is weapons of mass destruction”."
> >
> > https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3173188/eu-china-summit-was-dialogue-deaf-says-top-brussels-diplomat
> China doesn't want to engage in Ukraine is to avoid into any mistaken understanding by the EU foreign affairs and sending back their analysis to presume what Xi had said to them. It is best to avoid the topic of Ukraine as it can be construed with BS

1. China certainly wants war to end as soon as possible.
Does NATO want the war to end as soon as possible? Or does NATO want an occasion to bleed Russia? Ukraine is
then another Afghanistan.
Do they really care about Ukrainian death? Or such tragedy was viewed as a function of Russian death as well as
defense industry profit? For US companies, the war is a great opportunity to sell more weapon to Taiwan.

2. The current conflict is viewed by US and EU through the lens of democracy versus autocracy. Is this really the alpha and
omega of the conflict? Don't think so. Chinese people, probably, view the conflict through the lens of ethno-cultural nationalism
like the conflict between India and Pakistan over the sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir. Or between the Israeli and the
Palestinians. Will third party taking side really solve the problem? Not at all. At present, India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear
weapons.

Bilateral border must be bilaterally determined. A process but also an opportunity for both sides to balance short term
and long term cost and benefit.

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 6:19:44 AM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:59:10 PM UTC-4, stoney wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 9:05:03 PM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > "The European Union’s foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell has dismissed last week’s high-profile summit with China as a “dialogue of the deaf”, saying that Chinese leaders “did not want to talk about Ukraine”.
> > >
> > > In a stronger than usual rebuke of Beijing by Brussels’ top diplomat, Borrell told the European Parliament on Tuesday evening that Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and President Xi Jinping wanted to “instead focus on the positive things”.
> > >
> > > “China wanted to set aside our differences on Ukraine, they didn’t want to talk about Ukraine. They didn’t want to talk about human rights and other stuff and instead focus on positive things,” Borrell said during a fiery debate on China in Strasbourg, France.
> > >
> > > “This was not exactly a dialogue, maybe a dialogue of the deaf … we could not talk about Ukraine a lot, and we did not agree on anything else,” he continued.
> > >
> > > "The first bilateral summit in almost two years took place via video link on Friday, with Borrell joined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Charles Michel.
> > >
> > > The European side entered the talks determined to press China on its position on the Russian war against Ukraine, which it has failed to condemn..
> > >
> > > Borrell confirmed again that the Chinese leadership did not commit to withhold military or economic support from Russia.
> > >
> > > “The Chinese side stuck to their general statements of wishing to see peace, we are a peaceful people, we don’t invade others, asking for de-escalation, but avoiding specific commitments or avoiding any sort of line on Russia,” he told lawmakers.
> > >
> > > China, however, “does have a red line” on Russia, Borrell said, “which is weapons of mass destruction”."
> > >
> > > https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3173188/eu-china-summit-was-dialogue-deaf-says-top-brussels-diplomat
> > China doesn't want to engage in Ukraine is to avoid into any mistaken understanding by the EU foreign affairs and sending back their analysis to presume what Xi had said to them. It is best to avoid the topic of Ukraine as it can be construed with BS
> 1. China certainly wants war to end as soon as possible.
> Does NATO want the war to end as soon as possible? Or does NATO want an occasion to bleed Russia? Ukraine is
> then another Afghanistan.
> Do they really care about Ukrainian death? Or such tragedy was viewed as a function of Russian death as well as
> defense industry profit? For US companies, the war is a great opportunity to sell more weapon to Taiwan.
>
> 2. The current conflict is viewed by US and EU through the lens of democracy versus autocracy. Is this really the alpha and
> omega of the conflict? Don't think so. Chinese people, probably, view the conflict through the lens of ethno-cultural nationalism
> like the conflict between India and Pakistan over the sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir. Or between the Israeli and the
> Palestinians. Will third party taking side really solve the problem? Not at all. At present, India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear
> weapons.
>
> Bilateral border must be bilaterally determined. A process but also an opportunity for both sides to balance short term
> and long term cost and benefit.

Among the countries mentioned above, there are several other countries can also have the same effect of ethno-cultural nationalism too. Bilateral border will not be the main consideration anymore if that has had been resolved long ago. It is the cross-border of people living between them that will be the ethno-culture of conflict between its class 1 citizens ( solely born and raised in the country) and 2nd class citizens ( becoming citizen after leaving their own country for elsewhere).

On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 12:00:28 AM UTC-4, borie wrote:
> On Friday, April 8, 2022 at 6:19:44 AM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:59:10 PM UTC-4, stoney wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 9:05:03 PM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > > "The European Union’s foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell has dismissed last week’s high-profile summit with China as a “dialogue of the deaf”, saying that Chinese leaders “did not want to talk about Ukraine”.
> > > >
> > > > In a stronger than usual rebuke of Beijing by Brussels’ top diplomat, Borrell told the European Parliament on Tuesday evening that Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and President Xi Jinping wanted to “instead focus on the positive things”.
> > > >
> > > > “China wanted to set aside our differences on Ukraine, they didn’t want to talk about Ukraine. They didn’t want to talk about human rights and other stuff and instead focus on positive things,” Borrell said during a fiery debate on China in Strasbourg, France..
> > > >
> > > > “This was not exactly a dialogue, maybe a dialogue of the deaf … we could not talk about Ukraine a lot, and we did not agree on anything else,” he continued.
> > > >
> > > > "The first bilateral summit in almost two years took place via video link on Friday, with Borrell joined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Charles Michel.
> > > >
> > > > The European side entered the talks determined to press China on its position on the Russian war against Ukraine, which it has failed to condemn.
> > > >
> > > > Borrell confirmed again that the Chinese leadership did not commit to withhold military or economic support from Russia.
> > > >
> > > > “The Chinese side stuck to their general statements of wishing to see peace, we are a peaceful people, we don’t invade others, asking for de-escalation, but avoiding specific commitments or avoiding any sort of line on Russia,” he told lawmakers.
> > > >
> > > > China, however, “does have a red line” on Russia, Borrell said, “which is weapons of mass destruction”."
> > > >
> > > > https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3173188/eu-china-summit-was-dialogue-deaf-says-top-brussels-diplomat
> > > China doesn't want to engage in Ukraine is to avoid into any mistaken understanding by the EU foreign affairs and sending back their analysis to presume what Xi had said to them. It is best to avoid the topic of Ukraine as it can be construed with BS
> > 1. China certainly wants war to end as soon as possible.
> > Does NATO want the war to end as soon as possible? Or does NATO want an occasion to bleed Russia? Ukraine is
> > then another Afghanistan.
> > Do they really care about Ukrainian death? Or such tragedy was viewed as a function of Russian death as well as
> > defense industry profit? For US companies, the war is a great opportunity to sell more weapon to Taiwan.
> >
> > 2. The current conflict is viewed by US and EU through the lens of democracy versus autocracy. Is this really the alpha and
> > omega of the conflict? Don't think so. Chinese people, probably, view the conflict through the lens of ethno-cultural nationalism
> > like the conflict between India and Pakistan over the sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir. Or between the Israeli and the
> > Palestinians. Will third party taking side really solve the problem? Not at all. At present, India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear
> > weapons.
> >
> > Bilateral border must be bilaterally determined. A process but also an opportunity for both sides to balance short term
> > and long term cost and benefit.
> Among the countries mentioned above, there are several other countries can also have the same effect of ethno-cultural nationalism too. Bilateral border will not be the main consideration anymore if that has had been resolved long ago.

Again, the Russo-Ukrainian border is the results of long term interaction but the sudden collapse of the former USSR.

"Even a cursory familiarity with Ukraine reveals that Crimea and Donbas have long been Russian populated, are strategically and symbolically important to Russia, and were the subject of hot debate in Moscow at the time of the Soviet collapse. From the Kremlin’s view, these geographies have not been settled, neither in Russia’s favor nor otherwise."

> It is the cross-border of people living between them that will be the ethno-culture of conflict between its class 1 citizens ( solely born and raised in the country) and 2nd class citizens ( becoming citizen after leaving their own country for elsewhere).

There cannot be 2nd class citizens during nation building or rebuilding. For A PEOPLE building THEIR nation, nationalism and full franchise democracy are the same movement. Pro-Russia Ukrainians are caught between Ukrainian and Russian nationalism.

Putin would not try to take over the Donbas region if Ukraine could be precluded to to join NATO.

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 6:19:44 PM UTC-4, ltlee1 wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 12:59:10 PM UTC-4, stoney wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 9:05:03 PM UTC+8, ltlee1 wrote:
> > > "The European Union’s foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell has dismissed last week’s high-profile summit with China as a “dialogue of the deaf”, saying that Chinese leaders “did not want to talk about Ukraine”.
> > >
> > > In a stronger than usual rebuke of Beijing by Brussels’ top diplomat, Borrell told the European Parliament on Tuesday evening that Chinese Premier Li Keqiang and President Xi Jinping wanted to “instead focus on the positive things”.
> > >
> > > “China wanted to set aside our differences on Ukraine, they didn’t want to talk about Ukraine. They didn’t want to talk about human rights and other stuff and instead focus on positive things,” Borrell said during a fiery debate on China in Strasbourg, France.
> > >
> > > “This was not exactly a dialogue, maybe a dialogue of the deaf … we could not talk about Ukraine a lot, and we did not agree on anything else,” he continued.
> > >
> > > "The first bilateral summit in almost two years took place via video link on Friday, with Borrell joined by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President Charles Michel.
> > >
> > > The European side entered the talks determined to press China on its position on the Russian war against Ukraine, which it has failed to condemn..
> > >
> > > Borrell confirmed again that the Chinese leadership did not commit to withhold military or economic support from Russia.
> > >
> > > “The Chinese side stuck to their general statements of wishing to see peace, we are a peaceful people, we don’t invade others, asking for de-escalation, but avoiding specific commitments or avoiding any sort of line on Russia,” he told lawmakers.
> > >
> > > China, however, “does have a red line” on Russia, Borrell said, “which is weapons of mass destruction”."
> > >
> > > https://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/3173188/eu-china-summit-was-dialogue-deaf-says-top-brussels-diplomat
> > China doesn't want to engage in Ukraine is to avoid into any mistaken understanding by the EU foreign affairs and sending back their analysis to presume what Xi had said to them. It is best to avoid the topic of Ukraine as it can be construed with BS
> 1. China certainly wants war to end as soon as possible.
> Does NATO want the war to end as soon as possible? Or does NATO want an occasion to bleed Russia? Ukraine is
> then another Afghanistan.

May be Zelenskyy did not know Nato nations well. This explains why he did not seek to negotiate with Putin before the attack.
At this point he does get one thing straight. NATO nations have their own calculation.

The following from his interview with The Economists concerning the first group of NATO countries:

"[ZV] There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives. This is definitely in the interests of some countries. "

> Do they really care about Ukrainian death? Or such tragedy was viewed as a function of Russian death as well as
> defense industry profit? For US companies, the war is a great opportunity to sell more weapon to Taiwan.
>
> 2. The current conflict is viewed by US and EU through the lens of democracy versus autocracy. Is this really the alpha and
> omega of the conflict? Don't think so. Chinese people, probably, view the conflict through the lens of ethno-cultural nationalism
> like the conflict between India and Pakistan over the sovereignty of Jammu and Kashmir. Or between the Israeli and the
> Palestinians. Will third party taking side really solve the problem? Not at all. At present, India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear
> weapons.
>
> Bilateral border must be bilaterally determined. A process but also an opportunity for both sides to balance short term
> and long term cost and benefit.