China the Biggest Winner in US-Russian Confrontation

[xhw1986]

It has so far been unclear what damages the large-scale conflict between the US and Russia will bring to the world ad how participants in the conflict will be benefited, but one thing is crystal clear: China will be the biggest winner.

The website says that US Forbes magazine reports that China does not follow the US in imposing sanctions on Russia. Instead, it openly supports Russia. It will have Russia by his side as Russia will be forced to seek China’s political support. As a result, China has better chances to get energy, natural resources and military technology from Russia.

It believes that China will turn Russia into its stable strategic interior and base of natural resource for it to attain its goal as world leader. However, lots of experts hold that the political alliance between Russia and China will not be lasting as Russia will finally find the alliance too burdensome.

This blogger believes that in fact, Russia and China are each afraid of the other becoming too strong to be a threat to it. Their political alliance has entirely been the consequence of Obama’s stupid diplomacy of putting pressure on both countries at the same time.

However, in spite of the troubles Obama is facing in Ukraine, Iraq and Asia, Obama still wants others to believe that the US remains so powerful a world leader that it is capable of dealing with all the problems alone.

“Russia does not make anything” and China will be stopped if the West continues to be firm towards it, he said in his recent interview with media.

Russia has annexed Crimea and is trying to take eastern Ukraine. It is making something and US cannot stop it because Western sanctions cannot really hurt Russia if China supports Russia.

However, if China remained a US ally and joined US sanctions, the US will subdue Russia immediately.

China could not be stopped when it established its East China Sea Air Identification Defense Zone though the US has been firm in opposing that. The US and Japan have been firm but have not stopped Chinese patrol of disputed waters and air that they regard as being under Japanese sole administration.

Have EU members been firm towards China? No, they are selling advanced weapon and weapon technologies to China and have agreed to work towards the establishment of free trade relations with China.

Russian media : China is the winner of the US-Russian confrontation Sino-US war may still | EN NEWS 163

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

China's policy of "non-interference" allows us to be well positioned when it comes to such great power conflicts as the one between America and Russia.

However we will not sanction Russia, they are too strategically important to us. And they will continue to grow in strategic importance for us.

When it comes to sanctions, everyone loses out, that's not the right way to conduct international business.

 

[Raphael]

Interesting that the Russian media recognizes this, but the American media doesn't. America likes to talk tough and make generous use of buzzwords and phrases like "pivot-to-Asia". But they cannot cow us in the South China Sea and in fact, their meddling in other parts of the world is only fueling their alienation and delivering the rest of the world into our arms, which they are totally oblivious too. I have never seen a major American news outlet argue that they should stop meddling around the world or leveling new sanctions because it is only empowering China .

 

[BuddhaPalm]

USA is too weak to protect its Asian allies. Swift PLA action will take over Taiwan, Ryukyu Islands and Spratly Islands while missile and air strikes turn Tokyo, Hanoi and Manila into lakes of fire.

In less than 10 years, we will have the four aircraft carrier battle groups needed for our maritime advance.

 

[iajj]

China's policy of "non-interference" allows us to be well positioned when it comes to such great power conflicts as the one between America and Russia.

you are an idiot. by "non-interference" I assume you meant "neutrality", and there is no neutrality for any great powers in great power politics. if the confrontation escalates, china will have to enter the war to just preserve its skin, and it cannot enter the war on the US side because it will mean china will be fighting the war for US. so there is no "positioning" and there is no "in-between". any thought of strategic ambiguity is wishful thinking on the part of a stupid gangbazi.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

you are an idiot. by "non-interference" I assume you meant "neutrality", and there is no neutrality for any great powers in great power politics. if the confrontation escalates, china will have to enter the war to just preserve its skin, and it cannot enter the war on the US side because it will mean china will be fighting the war for US. so there is no "positioning" and there is no "in-between". any thought of strategic ambiguity is wishful thinking on the part of a stupid gangbazi.

Luckily the Chinese leaders are not so dumb as that.

Check out our official policy. There is no reason for us to fight and die on behalf of foreigners like you.

 

[Raphael]

you are an idiot. by "non-interference" I assume you meant "neutrality", and there is no neutrality for any great powers in great power politics. if the confrontation escalates, china will have to enter the war to just preserve its skin, and it cannot enter the war on the US side because it will mean china will be fighting the war for US. so there is no "positioning" and there is no "in-between". any thought of strategic ambiguity is wishful thinking on the part of a stupid gangbazi.

Non-interference doesn't mean neutrality at all. It means not resorting to military interference or an equivalently aggressive response (i.e. sanctions). It's the right policy when dealing with small players. If the confrontation between great powers ever escalates, then maybe the stakes will be too high to stay on the sidelines. I.E., in a Russo-American conflict, we may have to intervene on Russia's behalf just to restore the balance of power. But that is something for policy-makers to decide.

BTW, what do your favorite terms like Gangbazi and Debazi mean ?

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Non-interference doesn't mean neutrality at all. It means not resorting to military interference or an equivalently aggressive response (i.e. sanctions). It's the right policy when dealing with small players. If the confrontation between great powers ever escalates, then maybe the stakes will be too high to stay on the sidelines. I.E., in a Russo-American conflict, we may have to intervene on Russia's behalf just to restore the balance of power. But that is something for policy-makers to decide.

BTW, what do your favorite terms like Gangbazi and Debazi mean ?

The first one is this "港巴子" (similar to "台巴子") but I'm a Chinese nationalist, I don't care about regionalist crap like that. Especially not from a foreigner.

 

[iajj]

Non-interference doesn't mean neutrality at all. It means not resorting to military interference or an equivalently aggressive response (i.e. sanctions). It's the right policy when dealing with small players. If the confrontation between great powers ever escalates, then maybe the stakes will be too high to stay on the sidelines. I.E., in a Russo-American conflict, we may have to intervene on Russia's behalf just to restore the balance of power. But that is something for policy-makers to decide.

BTW, what do your favorite terms like Gangbazi and Debazi mean ?

read those in shanghaiese you will know

Luckily the Chinese leaders are not so dumb as that.

Check out our official policy. There is no reason for us to fight and die on behalf of foreigners like you.

official policy is there meant to dissimilate. what course the state must take when the moment of action falls upon it, however, is obvious to every intelligent person conversant with diplomatic history. a stupid gangbazi like you will understand neither policy nor raison d'état, of course. the brits raised you on a healthy diet of idiocy and slave mentality and pettiness.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

official policy is there meant to dissimilate. what course the state must take when the moment of action falls upon it, however, is obvious to every intelligent person conversant with diplomatic history. a stupid gangbazi like you will understand neither policy nor raison d'état, of course. the brits raised you on a healthy diet of idiocy and slave mentality and pettiness.

Too bad, it's our official policy, and your BS doesn't change that.

Check out our stance on Crimea. Or your beloved Palestine/Syria/Iran.

Where are the Chinese troops? That's right, here at home where they are supposed to be.

If you think we are going to use our troops to save foreigners like you, then too bad, keep waiting. Make a deal with the US like Iran did, and don't expect and tears from us.

 

[Aepsilons]

Too bad, it's our official policy, and your BS doesn't change that.

Check out our stance on Crimea. Or your beloved Palestine/Syria/Iran.

Where are the Chinese troops? That's right, here at home where they are supposed to be.

Well said, my friend. It does not benefit China or any other country to get involved in the Middle East militarily. I salute the current Chinese Leadership in regards to their foreign policy in the Middle East. Neutral and non-interventionist is best.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Well said, my friend. It does not benefit China or any other country to get involved in the Middle East militarily. I salute the current Chinese Leadership in regards to their foreign policy in the Middle East. Neutral and non-interventionist is best.

So many non-Chinese members here (often false flaggers like iajj) are crying about our non-interventionist policy.

Do they really expect us to risk our lives to save them? It's the joke of the century, that's none of our business.

America is the global policeman, if they are so desperate for help, they know who to call. And good luck with that.

 

[Aepsilons]

So many non-Chinese members here (often false flaggers like iajj) are crying about our non-interventionist policy.

Do they really expect us to risk our lives to save them in the Middle East? It's the joke of the century, that's none of our business.

America is the global policeman, if they are so desperate for help, they know who to call. And good luck with that.

I truly agree. Given the global implications of intervening and 'stepping on regional toes', and considering China's global interests -- it has significant interests and investments in Africa, in the Middle East -- it would be foolish policy for the Leadership to involve itself in sectarian violence. As one action will be taken and regarded by certain sectarian forces as an act of war by the Chinese Government. In fact, that is one area that I admire about the Chinese leadership's foreign policy. I would also expect Japan's own government to maintain our non-interventionist policy.

 

[C130]

good for China and Russia
I can't wait til we step down from policing the world.
let China and Russia handle protecting or non-intervenning in the middle east.

 

[Raphael]

The first one is this "港巴子" (similar to "台巴子") but I'm a Chinese nationalist, I don't care about regionalist crap like that. Especially not from a foreigner.

Of course. Uiui must mean 回回. I feel slow for not making the connection earlier .

Anyway, @iajj also has a deep loathing for Jews and wants China to intervene against Israel too. I don't know where he got such strong, impassioned views of the parts of the world that don't concern China...