Chinese-Russian Alliance Possible?

[below_freezing]

at this point in time, it is the most logical thing to do. Russia is facing threat to the west from NATO, at this rate it is questionable whether Russia can keep moscow without nuclear weapons if under a full scale NATO invasion.

China is also surrounded by NATO and pals. Japan, South Korea, Australia, Afghanistan, and if india decides to join NATO, even worse.

all countries that threaten China can also threaten Russia.

so why can't we get along better?

 

[Communist]

Just released...

NATO's New Mission Statement: Win the War in Afghanistan, Court China

According to NATO's new mission statement, NATO must win the war against Afgahnistan, have closer ties with Russia and China, counter the nuclear threat from Iran and provide security to its 28 member nations.

As a military alliance, NATO dates back to 1949 when the original charter was signed. The original member states agreed to mutual defence if there was an attack of a member nation. The initial unstated aim was to keep Germany down, the U.S. in and the Soviet Union out.

At the height of the Cold War, an Army Group was deployed in Europe (primarily Germany) as a deterrent to a Soviet attack. After the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO has been deployed to Bosnia and recently oustide of Europe into Afghanistan.

Although there was no agression from the former Yugoslavia, instability in the Balkans, threatened the rest of Europe. Afghanistan would also have been a lose interpretation of an attack on a member country.

With this background in mind, the United States has suggested that NATO should have a much larger international role. Europeans want to maintain its defensive focus.

Former Secretary of State Madelaine Albright said "NATO must be versatile and efficient enough to operate far from home, in order to sustain the political will for operations outside its area, NATO must see that all its members are reassured about the security of their home territories." Albright was head of a team that formulated the mission statement. Many of the NATO members have a defence budget well below the 2% of GDP guidelines. As a comparison the latest US defence budget amount to $710 Billion, while the combined budgbet of America's European allies amounts to $280 Billion.

NATO's New Mission Statement: Win the War in ...

 

[Cityboy]

Keep dreaming. Another fanboy thread. .happy hellucination.

 

[aimarraul]

two countries are undergoing the best period since last 60' ,but unfortunately U.S is still the only content, china and russia are seemingly in harmony but actually at variance.americans are more flexible than the russians

 

[below_freezing]

americans are flexible in that they can backstab anyone at any time. they supported the dictator saddam as late as 1988 and then stabbed him 3 years later. they supported pakistan in 80's as long as they were a chess piece against Russia, once pakistan beat russia the US ditched.

russians have a more consistent track record, especially with countries that are equally powerful.

 

[satishkumarcsc]

Arent you two already in an alliance called SCO?

 

[below_freezing]

it's not as solid as NATO.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

A temporarily strategic patner is what the best I can describe. The Russians have their core interests as well as we have.

 

[GUNDAM]

Never.
Couldn't last long even USSR still existed, how can you image it in these days.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I think it is even harder to form a temporary alliance with the current Russian Federation which has been run by a bunch of Pro-West Zionists.

The Slavic Nationalist like Putin is also not our true friend, but at least we have a common foe which is USA. Now the Pro-Western puppet like Medvedev is very dangerous to China and would stab us without any hesitation. It will be better if Putin can regain his power in the 2012 election.

 

[deepak75]

Alliances are based on fundamental beliefs. That is an imperative. While the tenor of an alliance may change owing to different strategic scenarios but fundmentally an alliance needs more than a common foe to be in place.

Hence I would qualify your desire for Putin to be the President rather than Medvedev, though in my opinion it is clear that Medvedev has no difference of approach that what Putin had.

My little bit: It is best to have an economic alliance that is more profitable. In the future, it will not the armies but he economies that will decide who has more support and who is the winner.

 

[Prometheus]

China is also surrounded by NATO and pals. Japan, South Korea, Australia, Afghanistan, and if india decides to join NATO, even worse.

all countries that threaten China can also threaten Russia.

India vs Russia ..................I disagree

 

[GUNDAM]

Alliances are based on fundamental beliefs. That is an imperative. While the tenor of an alliance may change owing to different strategic scenarios but fundmentally an alliance needs more than a common foe to be in place.

Hence I would qualify your desire for Putin to be the President rather than Medvedev, though in my opinion it is clear that Medvedev has no difference of approach that what Putin had.

My little bit: It is best to have an economic alliance that is more profitable. In the future, it will not the armies but he economies that will decide who has more support and who is the winner.

China has never thought to be alliance with Russia since the relationship broke up in USSR time.
Russia and China both want to be great again, but they are completely different from the original point.
Russia's ultimate hope is to be the strongest role as the western style.
But for China, to be greatest means to change the world's style -- the western style.
This is also why India's or Russia's mistakes or bad news always incur much less criticism than China dose.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Alliances are based on fundamental beliefs. That is an imperative. While the tenor of an alliance may change owing to different strategic scenarios but fundmentally an alliance needs more than a common foe to be in place.

Hence I would qualify your desire for Putin to be the President rather than Medvedev, though in my opinion it is clear that Medvedev has no difference of approach that what Putin had.
My little bit: It is best to have an economic alliance that is more profitable. In the future, it will not the armies but he economies that will decide who has more support and who is the winner.

Of course, there is a fundamental difference between these two guys. Putin is always against the nuclear disarmament. Now this treaty signed by both American and Russian Zionists are not for stopping the nuclear profileration, but it is used to tackle against China.

Since China is the only nuclear power who has never unveiled its modern nuclear stockpiles. They want to use this treaty to drag China into this restriction and to reduce China's nuclear capability.

That's why we don't have kept a low profile about our nuclear stockpiles.

 

[deepak75]

China has never thought to be alliance with Russia since the relationship broke up in USSR time.
Russia and China both want to be great again, but they are completely different from the original.
Russia's ultimate hope is to be a strongest role as the western style.
But for China, to be greatest means to change the world's style -- the western style.
This is also why India's or Russia's mistakes or bad news always incur much less criticism than China dose.

Exactly my friend. Now tell me what military alliance is sustainable between Russian and China given the current dichotomy of objectives?

I hope that you have an answer. That is why I again impress, that the economic cooperation is always more worthy than a military alliance.