LordTyrannus
BANNED
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2014
- Messages
- 2,310
- Reaction score
- -29
- Country
- Location
Dissolve NATO, then we can talk about we don't live in a Cold War.
BOOM! Excelent Comment!
China to Russia: You're putting us in a tight spot
- Thread starter faithfulguy
- Start date
BOOM! Excelent Comment!
Dissolve NATO, then we can talk about we don't live in a Cold War.
After what happened in Ukraine and the constant sending bombers to North America even though we haven't send any bombers to Russia in the past. Nope we ain't dissolving it. Actually Russia's actions tends to encourage keeping it. Already other countries are responding to Russia's looming threat to them like Poland especially. They haven't forgotten what Russia did. Even if the name has changed.
atlssa
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2014
- Messages
- 220
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Dissolve NATO, then we can talk about we don't live in a Cold War.
I understand your point of view, nevertheless I don't see how it could happen. Cold war never ended, and never will. It is strongly attached to nations self-determination principle, which exists all over the world.
Continuous Chinese practice of reaping benefit while not willing to touch water is not a sustainable position. Nor is appreciated by many countries who mistaken China to be strategic partner. Chinese policy heavily influenced by business ambition and utterly failed to understand strategic interest goes above financial consideration.
In case of Ukraine, Chinese position exposes its intention of reaping benefit from the situation while slipping and sliding on its responsibility to strategic partnership with Russia. Instead, while US will be busy with Ukraine and China is aiming to roll back US pivot as much as it can. China can do both, yet choose a opportunist path.
Trust may not be a component in westeren strategic understanding but in eastern culture trust is big. For Russia or any country observing Chinese opportunist agenda will be loosing confidence China as "real friend or partner".
In case of Ukraine, Chinese position exposes its intention of reaping benefit from the situation while slipping and sliding on its responsibility to strategic partnership with Russia. Instead, while US will be busy with Ukraine and China is aiming to roll back US pivot as much as it can. China can do both, yet choose a opportunist path.
Trust may not be a component in westeren strategic understanding but in eastern culture trust is big. For Russia or any country observing Chinese opportunist agenda will be loosing confidence China as "real friend or partner".
What kind of interest for China to benefit from the current situation in Ukraine? China didn't push Russia to take over Urkaine nor China behind Urkaine revolution to oust Urkaine sitting president, this conflict create by the West in Russia backyard, Russia will do whatever it take to secure Russia interest in the region, China geopolitic have no influence in the western or eastern bloc of Europe. No matter what happen in geopolitical conflict in the world, US won't abandon Asia and leave the power vaccum to China to control. Asian nations around China peripheral will always find a way counter weight China no matter what happen in the world. Russia and China are strategic partnership in which both nation cooperation to ensure each other interest to be preserve in the world, China and Russia isn't a miliatary alliance, Russia can't burden China with economy fallout because the civil unrest in Urkaine, Russia can't depend on China to carry the heavy load for the situation in Urkaine.
China won't side with the West to destroy their economy in other to sanction Russia for the misadventure of the West in Urkaine. China will continue bilateral trade with Russia even with the West sanction Russia take place, West can't force other nation to completely shutting out their bilateral trade with Russia because of the West mandate without UN approval. I don't think China will vote sanction Russia in U.N resolution.
Beidou2020
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 7,857
- Reaction score
- -48
- Country
- Location
ChineseTiger1986
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2010
- Messages
- 23,530
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
A backstabbing country will never become successful because it cannot get into business with other nations in the next time.
Beidou2020
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2013
- Messages
- 7,857
- Reaction score
- -48
- Country
- Location
We have abandoned North Korea for America.
China has not abandoned nk.
nangyale
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- May 31, 2010
- Messages
- 2,251
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
Implausible reality
By M K Bhadrakumar,
Without much ado, China’s first and only aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, left its homeport of Qingdao in east China’s Shandong Province on Sunday for conducting tests and training missions.
How far deep into the blue sea it will sail and how long will its mission continue remains unclear. But what is clear is that unlike during its 37-day voyage in the South China Sea last December, when the guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens conducted surveillance of the Liaoning, no such provocative intelligence-gathering operation by the Americans is likely.
The Asia-Pacific is no more the same. The Associated Press reported that the emergent preoccupations on the European theatre have become “a renewed reality that may force president Barack Obama’s administration to give up its intended foreign policy shift to Asia indefinitely”.
Indeed, the looming crisis in Ukraine threatens to impact the power dynamic all across East Asia as well as the regions of Central Asia and Afghanistan and West Asia, the wide swathe of land American strategists would call the Greater Middle East. To be sure, the new government in New Delhi after the parliamentary poll on April-May can expect an external environment of great fluidity surrounding India.
The locus of the US foreign policy has shifted back to Europe. Europe has been receiving only glancing mention as a foreign-policy priority for the Obama administration, but the first sign of a reshuffling of priorities appeared at the annual Munich security conference two months ago in the speech by the US secretary of state John Kerry.
He all but admitted Washington’s realisation that the weakening of the US’ transatlantic leadership through the last decade or so, coupled with the administration’s plan to roll back military spending and shrink armed forces, steadily undercut the US’ capacity to lead from the front in global politics. Suffice to say, the US is rediscovering the core value of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) and this is being put to test in Ukraine.
The US hopes to rally the world to push back resurgent Russia, whereas the approach so far has been to selectively engage Russia on areas of vital American interests and to use Moscow’s considerable leverage to help solve world problems. The Ukraine problem at its core is related to Moscow’s attempt to integrate the former Soviet republics under the Eurasian Union. The Eurasian Union challenges the US’ project to present the Nato as the provider of security for Central Asia.
From the Russian perspective, on the other hand, NATO’s expansion and the deployment of the US missile defence system on its border regions would transform the global strategic balance in Washington’s favour and divest Moscow of its nuclear deterrence capabilities.
Impact on India
India may face negative fallouts of these big-power rivalries that can be expected to erupt in Central Asia, especially if the US reverts to its Cold War strategy to use the ‘jihad’ as instrument of policy to overthrow the pro-Russian regimes in that region. The recent visit by the Saudi Crown Prince Salman bin Al-Saud to Pakistan and the forthcoming visit by Obama to Saudi Arabia suggest that new templates are appearing in regional politics.
Clearly, the US sees the military bases in Afghanistan as invaluable strategic assets to project power into Central Asia. On the other hand, the open-ended western occupation of Afghanistan will fuel the ‘jihadi’ elements, and the implications are serious for regional security. Syria is a telling example of the danger of the ascendancy of extremists. Any rupture in the US-Russia cooperation will only complicate further the situation in Syria and make it more difficult to find a political solution.
The big question is whether the US imposes ‘sanctions’ on Russia. Any such move would have huge consequences for the world energy market and would, most certainly, draw forth retaliation by Russia. The result could well be a showdown over the situation surrounding Iran where Moscow has so far cooperated with Washington. Obama insists that 95 percent of the US sanctions against Iran will remain in place until a nuclear deal is concluded. But Russia is under no obligation to observe the US’ sanction regime against Iran. Iran’s integration with the international community can no longer be on American terms and the implications are profound for the security of the Persian Gulf.
Over and above, the understanding shown by Beijing to Moscow’s stance in the Ukraine crisis enriches the China-Russia strategic partnership. In comparison, Japan caved in to the US pressure to toe the G7 line and the Russia-Japan normalization process would get delayed. Thus, China becomes a crucial partner for Russia in its upcoming struggle to break out of the ring of political and economic isolation that the US threatens to impose on it. In the emergent scenario, Washington would be exceedingly foolish to cause any annoyance to Beijing.
In sum, the US’ capacity to push its ‘rebalance’ strategy in Asia becomes more doubtful than ever before. How these incipient tendencies in big power politics would crystallize remains to be seen, but the Ukraine crisis holds the potential to become a ‘game changer’ in the politics of the Asia-Pacific. India, in retrospect, did well by eschewing ‘bloc mentality’, which would have proved delusional, and instead opted for a process of normalisation with China.
Of course, implausible as it may seem, the new reality is also that the Liaoning could well choose to head northward to the East China Sea to test its prowess in the vicinity of the Diaoyu Islands – even by sailing by it and putting it on a navigation chart. If that were to happen, would Japan resist or retreat? Put simply, China is the winner in the US’s confrontation with Russia.
(The writer is a former Indian ambassador)
By M K Bhadrakumar,
Without much ado, China’s first and only aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, left its homeport of Qingdao in east China’s Shandong Province on Sunday for conducting tests and training missions.
How far deep into the blue sea it will sail and how long will its mission continue remains unclear. But what is clear is that unlike during its 37-day voyage in the South China Sea last December, when the guided missile cruiser USS Cowpens conducted surveillance of the Liaoning, no such provocative intelligence-gathering operation by the Americans is likely.
The Asia-Pacific is no more the same. The Associated Press reported that the emergent preoccupations on the European theatre have become “a renewed reality that may force president Barack Obama’s administration to give up its intended foreign policy shift to Asia indefinitely”.
Indeed, the looming crisis in Ukraine threatens to impact the power dynamic all across East Asia as well as the regions of Central Asia and Afghanistan and West Asia, the wide swathe of land American strategists would call the Greater Middle East. To be sure, the new government in New Delhi after the parliamentary poll on April-May can expect an external environment of great fluidity surrounding India.
The locus of the US foreign policy has shifted back to Europe. Europe has been receiving only glancing mention as a foreign-policy priority for the Obama administration, but the first sign of a reshuffling of priorities appeared at the annual Munich security conference two months ago in the speech by the US secretary of state John Kerry.
He all but admitted Washington’s realisation that the weakening of the US’ transatlantic leadership through the last decade or so, coupled with the administration’s plan to roll back military spending and shrink armed forces, steadily undercut the US’ capacity to lead from the front in global politics. Suffice to say, the US is rediscovering the core value of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Nato) and this is being put to test in Ukraine.
The US hopes to rally the world to push back resurgent Russia, whereas the approach so far has been to selectively engage Russia on areas of vital American interests and to use Moscow’s considerable leverage to help solve world problems. The Ukraine problem at its core is related to Moscow’s attempt to integrate the former Soviet republics under the Eurasian Union. The Eurasian Union challenges the US’ project to present the Nato as the provider of security for Central Asia.
From the Russian perspective, on the other hand, NATO’s expansion and the deployment of the US missile defence system on its border regions would transform the global strategic balance in Washington’s favour and divest Moscow of its nuclear deterrence capabilities.
Impact on India
India may face negative fallouts of these big-power rivalries that can be expected to erupt in Central Asia, especially if the US reverts to its Cold War strategy to use the ‘jihad’ as instrument of policy to overthrow the pro-Russian regimes in that region. The recent visit by the Saudi Crown Prince Salman bin Al-Saud to Pakistan and the forthcoming visit by Obama to Saudi Arabia suggest that new templates are appearing in regional politics.
Clearly, the US sees the military bases in Afghanistan as invaluable strategic assets to project power into Central Asia. On the other hand, the open-ended western occupation of Afghanistan will fuel the ‘jihadi’ elements, and the implications are serious for regional security. Syria is a telling example of the danger of the ascendancy of extremists. Any rupture in the US-Russia cooperation will only complicate further the situation in Syria and make it more difficult to find a political solution.
The big question is whether the US imposes ‘sanctions’ on Russia. Any such move would have huge consequences for the world energy market and would, most certainly, draw forth retaliation by Russia. The result could well be a showdown over the situation surrounding Iran where Moscow has so far cooperated with Washington. Obama insists that 95 percent of the US sanctions against Iran will remain in place until a nuclear deal is concluded. But Russia is under no obligation to observe the US’ sanction regime against Iran. Iran’s integration with the international community can no longer be on American terms and the implications are profound for the security of the Persian Gulf.
Over and above, the understanding shown by Beijing to Moscow’s stance in the Ukraine crisis enriches the China-Russia strategic partnership. In comparison, Japan caved in to the US pressure to toe the G7 line and the Russia-Japan normalization process would get delayed. Thus, China becomes a crucial partner for Russia in its upcoming struggle to break out of the ring of political and economic isolation that the US threatens to impose on it. In the emergent scenario, Washington would be exceedingly foolish to cause any annoyance to Beijing.
In sum, the US’ capacity to push its ‘rebalance’ strategy in Asia becomes more doubtful than ever before. How these incipient tendencies in big power politics would crystallize remains to be seen, but the Ukraine crisis holds the potential to become a ‘game changer’ in the politics of the Asia-Pacific. India, in retrospect, did well by eschewing ‘bloc mentality’, which would have proved delusional, and instead opted for a process of normalisation with China.
Of course, implausible as it may seem, the new reality is also that the Liaoning could well choose to head northward to the East China Sea to test its prowess in the vicinity of the Diaoyu Islands – even by sailing by it and putting it on a navigation chart. If that were to happen, would Japan resist or retreat? Put simply, China is the winner in the US’s confrontation with Russia.
(The writer is a former Indian ambassador)
I have stopped reading your response after that line because you are drifted far from points I have made. First, no one claimed China did anything or behind Ukraine situation. Inserting such statement is just diversion tactic. China very my betrayed Russia on "strategic relation" it many times publicly craved and bragged about. Instead, China is using the situation as opportune moment to roll back US pivot plan.
Its not if but when US turn around try to push China, Russia very well do the same.
Recently, for some petty economic interest, China did the same in Bangladesh. Bangladesh aspiration or people who are vocal about Bangladesh to be truly sovereign state, China thrown them under the bus. That is just one example.
That tells consistent story - China is good partner so long there is money to make and does not have to stand up for anyone it pretends to be friend.
China and Russia bilateral trade already hinder the effectiveness of the West intention of sanction Russia, this bilateral trade already provide much needed support Russia want by the threat Russia face with the sanction, issue statement support Russia and alienate the West don't do China or Russia any good, Russia will never jeopardize their security or interest for all out support of China in the territorial dispute with other Asian nations. Not my intention change the topic and support my opinion why China didn't planned the situation from Urkaine for the benefitial of China foreign policy. I provide my reason to counter your opinion that China used this Ukraine situation to further the China interest is a wrong assumption.
China push her weight around other nation internal matter will only create resentment from the population of that country, China don't interfere with other internal affair because China don't want to export their political belief or idealogy to other nations, they are no longer in a fight for the supremacy of communism worldwide after the collapse of Soviet Union. Bilateral trade between nations don't need any political intanglement which only make matter worse in the long run and not benefitial to any party.
Last edited:
Superboy
BANNED
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2013
- Messages
- 6,298
- Reaction score
- -7
- Country
- Location
With regards to Ukraine, Russia does not need China's help. It's not like there can be a UN military resolution against Russia, with Russian being a permanent veto wielding member of UNSC. The important thing for Russia is to incorporate the Crimean peninsula into Russia. Next up would be Odessa and eastern Ukraine joining Russia as Ukraine's economy collapses and Ukraine plunges into chaos and protests. I don't believe there will be a presidential election in Ukraine in May. Who's going to run?
