The problem in the case of Greece is that the "existing government" was quite extensively involved in collaborating with the Nazi and Italian Fascist occupation forces. As such it may be existing, but arguably not legitimate. Also it later lead to a far right dictatorship in 1967-1974.
China benefits from the Ukraine war because it weakens the US. If the EU was to dislodge itself from the US that would be a far greater benefit for China. Also China has its own conflicts with Russia in central Asia.
China is not the one "bullying" the EU here. The EU is being bullied by the US and Russia. Trump is already showing that the US is not really interested in Ukraine as much, unless it gets its money back in resources. What China doesn't want is the US and Russia joining sides and the EU tagging along as it lacks proper independent foreign policy. China also doesn't want Russia to win as this would strengthen Russia militarily and embolden it in Central Asia as well as compel countries in Africa to seek more relationships with Russia than with China.
I think you perceive the countries opposed to US hegemony as far more monolithic as you are used to the EU countries practically always falling in line with the demands of Washington. But the relationships between the countries outside that bloc are far more ambiguous.
Lets go through the list. Subsequently i will count not only USSR and US, but their allies, e.g. China, France, UK, Germany too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War
In the last month of World War II in East Asia, Soviet forces launched the huge Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation against the Japanese Kwantung Army in Manchuria and along the Chinese-Mongolian border.[71] This operation destroyed the Kwantung Army in just three weeks and left the USSR occupying all of Manchuria by the end of the war in a total power vacuum of local Chinese forces. Consequently, the 700,000 Japanese troops stationed in the region surrendered. Later in the year Chiang Kai-shek realized that he lacked the resources to prevent a CCP takeover of Manchuria following the scheduled Soviet departure.[72] He therefore made a deal with the Soviets to delay their withdrawal until he had moved enough of his best-trained men and modern materiel into the region. However, the Soviets refused permission for the Nationalist troops to traverse its territory and spent the extra time systematically dismantling the extensive Manchurian industrial base (worth up to $2 billion) and shipping it back to their war-ravaged country.[72] KMT troops were then airlifted by the US to occupy key cities in North China, while the countryside was already dominated by the CCP. On 15 November 1945, the KMT began a campaign to prevent the CCP from strengthening its already strong base.[73] At the same time, however, the return of the KMT also brought widespread graft and corruption, with an OSS officer remarking that the only winners were the Communists.[74]
I'd say that is 50:50 USSR was there first to fight off the Japanese. When the USSR didn't let the nationalists reclaim the territory, the US joined on the nationalists side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_crisis_of_1946
In the aftermath of the occupation of Iran, those Allied forces agreed to withdraw from Iran within six months after the cessation of hostilities.[6] However, when this deadline came in early 1946, the Soviets, under Joseph Stalin, remained in Iran. Soon, the alliance of the Kurdish and People's Azerbaijani forces, supported in arms and training by the Soviet Union, engaged in fighting with Iranian forces,[1] resulting in a total of 2,000 casualties. Negotiation by Iranian premier Ahmad Qavam and diplomatic pressure on the Soviets by the United States eventually led to Soviet withdrawal and dissolution of the separatist Azerbaijani and Kurdish states.
That one is on the USSR
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Civil_War
The conflict, which erupted shortly after the end of World War II, consisted of a Communist-led uprising against the established government of the Kingdom of Greece.
Note that the "Kingdom of Greece" government was a Fascist puppet of occupying Germany and Italy.
German forces withdrew on 12 October 1944, and the government in exile returned to Athens. After the German withdrawal, the EAM-ELAS guerrilla army effectively controlled most of Greece, but its leaders were reluctant to take control of the country, as they knew that Stalin had agreed that Greece would be in the British sphere of influence after the war. Tensions between the British-backed Papandreou and EAM, especially over the issue of disarmament of the various armed groups, leading to the resignation of the latter's ministers from the government.
The Yugoslav and Albanian Communist governments supported the DSE fighters, but the Soviet Union remained ambivalent.[
The Greek Army now numbered about 90,000 men and was gradually being put on a more professional footing. The task of re-equipping and training the army had been carried out by its fellow Western Allies. By early 1947, however, Britain, which had spent £85 million in Greece since 1944, could no longer afford this burden. US President Harry S. Truman announced that the United States would step in to support the Greek government against Communist pressure. That began a long and troubled relationship between Greece and the United States. For several decades to come, the US
Stalin explained to the Yugoslav delegation that the situation in Greece had always been different from the one in Yugoslavia because the US and Britain would "never permit [Greece] to break off their lines of communication in the Mediterranean". (Stalin used the word svernut, Russian for "fold up", to express what the Greek Communists should do.) Churchill and Stalin had agreed in 1944 that Greece would be in the British zone of influence and Romania in the Soviet zone of influence.
That one is on the US and UK
First Indochina war doesn't even list the USSR or China as involved. That one is clearly on the US and France
Paraguyan civil war again doesn't even list USSR or China and is a US war
Malayan emergency, same thing. No USSR or China, but US involvement
Korean war - 50:50 as US and USSR split Korea in half, which let to the war
Mau Mau uprising - only UK is mentioned
Second Indochina war (Vietnam war) - that one is on the US and to a lesser extent France who also mainly destroyed South Vietnam instead of fighting for control in the North
First Taiwan Strait crisis - That one is not a proxy war from the Chinese perspective, as it is the continuation of the Civil War. With the US involving itself it is a proxy war on the side of the US
First Sudanese civil war - here the cold war opponents were on the same side with non combat support. Doesn't make sense to count it imo.
Suez Crisis - Obviously on the UK, France and Israel who wanted to keep their colonial control
Second Taiwan Strait crisis - same as before. PRC China is not a proxy in its own civil war. The US has been using ROC as proxy.
1958 Lebanon crisis - US proxy war as USSR and China not even on the list
1959 Tibetan uprising - same as the Taiwan Strait crisis. PRC China is not a proxy on its own soil, that one is on the US
I will stop here, because i need to work. I'll count Afghanistan towards the USSR as instigator into the proxy.
That leaves by my count (excluding the 6 or so more on that list) 4 proxy wars in which the Communist bloc was instigating or equally responsible. The Western bloc meanwhile has been instigating or was equally responsible in 13 proxy wars.
I recommend people to listen to John Mearsheimer. He explains it very well. Basically there is three focal points in global geopolitics from the US perspective.
Eastern Europe, because there is Russia close to NATO. The Persian gulf, because there is the most Oil and Gas and South-East Asia, because there is China emerging as the main global competitor to US hegemony.
Because the US started to develop their own Oil and Gas exploitation, and China is ever growing, since Obama the goal is to shift the focus from the Middle East to South-East Asia. Now Russia bogged down US commitment in Eastern Europe and Israel keeps bogging down the US in the Middle East, ideally wanting to drag the US into a full scale war against Iran.
This situation is perfect for China as the US keeps its military resources away from where they actually need them for their geostrategy.
Subsequently China does not want Russia to win in Ukraine either. They want the US to remain involved. This is also why a different approach to China by the EU could be the best way forward for peace in Ukraine. If the EU dislodges itself from the US hegemony and stops involving itself in the Middle East alongside the US, China could see a greater benefit in ending the war in Ukraine. Chin, Russia and Iran do not as much form an alliance because of being great friends. They share an alliance because they all have the same opponent, the US and its client states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_the_Home_Civil_Service
In general use, the term civil servant in the United Kingdom does not include all public sector employees. Although there is no fixed legal definition, the term is usually defined as a "servant of the Crown working in a civil capacity who is not the holder of a political (or judicial) office; the holder of certain other offices in respect of whose tenure of office special provision has been made; [or] a servant of the Crown in a personal capacity paid from the Civil List".[2]
As such, the civil service does not include government ministers (who are politically appointed); members of the British Armed Forces; police officers; officers of local government authorities; employees of some non-departmental public bodies;[3] officers or staff of either of the Houses of Parliament;[4][5] employees of the National Health Service (NHS); or staff of the Royal Household.[6] As of the end of March 2021 there were 484,880 civil servants in the Civil Service, an increase of 6.23 per cent on the previous year.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_Secretary_(United_Kingdom)
The cabinet secretary is the most senior civil servant in the United Kingdom and is based in the Cabinet Office. The person in this role acts as the senior policy adviser to the prime minister and Cabinet, and as the secretary to the Cabinet is responsible to all ministers for the efficient running of government. The role is currently occupied by Sir Chris Wormald.[
Intelligence - The cabinet secretary is responsible for overseeing the intelligence services and their relationship to the government, though since 2002 this responsibility has been delegated to a full-time role (initially as Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator, now the National Security Adviser), with the cabinet secretary focussing on civil service reforms to help deliver the government's policy programme.
So apparently any knowledge to that effect does not come from his role as head of the civil service, which is joined with the role of cabinet secretary. As cabinet secretary he must have had close ties with the intelligence services and as key organizer and advisor of the prime minister and ministries he must have had access to all sorts of sensitive information.
However the question is, why a former government official is raising these points rather than the government itself. Obviously calling the head of the Chinese government a "dictator" is not acceptable diplomatically. Still i am sure China understands quite well that this is what the UK government wants to communicate.
Does Muskrat seem like a happy and balanced individual to you? What about Coked up Bezos or AI Zuckerberg?
That is unless the bully messes with the wrong person and gets the shit beaten out of them.
Yes, it is intentional. And the "never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence" trope is clearly wrong in the context of politicians.
When they do these things they know what they are doing and who they are doing it for. Imagine an engineer would have designed 10 generations of exploding phones. Would you say it is just incompetence after the third one? So why give politicians the slack to always be "incompetent" in the same way over and over again that just so happens to defend the interests of the oligarchy against the normal people?
Germany currently moves to "fuck the constitution, fuck the law, if you skin is brown, you will be treated like shit."
Maintaining and expanding the railway network however is equally important for Civilian purposes. It is not that the military adds a need that previously didn't exist. And we get in a very problematic area, if public infrastructure investments are made dependent on having a military purpose too. This creates a hierarchy of needs where the military is put to the forefront, subsequently creating a militarized society.
It is a transaction. If China exerts pressure on Russia to end the war it gets better relations with the EU and the EU limiting its military involvement with the US in return.
This also wouldn't be abandoning Ukraine. As it stands Ukraine is being used to do the attrition of the Russian military for the West. Meanwhile the US already lays claim to Ukraines natural resources and the EU countries will probably follow suit. The longer the war goes, the less basis will be left for Ukraine to maintain sovereignty. If the war continues another year or two, Ukraine will either become a puppet of Russia, or a puppet of the US, with the EU asking to be allowed to play the strings every now and then.
Or alternatively the EU would need to go to all out war against Russia, with all the consequences of it. That might save Ukraine relatively speaking, or it might annihilate Ukraine completely as it will be the main battlefield.
The current status quo represents a slow abandoning of Ukraine.