The Great Game Changer: Belt and Road Intiative (BRI; OBOR)

[AgentOrange]

We are going to make an assumption that this isn't a US vs the Entire World scenario. If it was then it would be useless to try as we''d have far more militaries to worry about other than just China. We going to blockade the entire planet?

Let's make the assumption that most of the world powers are with us.

The more likely assumption is that at least some of China's major trading partners will not take sides. As I said, China is not as easily isolated as Iran or Syria. In which case, a more realistic scenario is that militarily, it's mainly the US vs China whilst economically, a lot of world powers are going to sit it out.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

The more likely assumption is that at least some of China's major trading partners will not take sides. As I said, China is not as easily isolated as Iran or Syria. In which case, a more realistic scenario is that militarily, it's mainly the US vs China whilst economically, a lot of world powers are going to sit it out.

So when we call them up and say don't send any of your ships to China...to "sit it out" does that mean they keep their ships in port...or does sit it out mean they do business as usual. It's going to be hard to "sit it out".

And if they send their trade ships to China...what options do you think the US really has? The US Navy going to start ramming ships and sending them to the bottom?? I don't think so. Blockades in the 21st century start and end with a phone call.

 

[TaiShang]

Let's make the assumption that most of the world powers are with us.

How come? Even in Syria, not most of the world powers are with you.

In Iran, Turkey stabbed you in the back by cutting secret oil deals with Tehran.

I guess China has a lot more leverage than Syria and Iran do to convince most of the world powers to stay at least neutral in the case of a high-seas/chokepoints blockade.

Even on the issue of Ukraine, the West is not on the same page.

 

[AgentOrange]

So when we call them up and say don't send any of your ships to China...to "sit it out" does that mean they keep their ships in port...or does sit it out mean they do business as usual. It's going to be hard to "sit it out".

And if they send their trade ships to China...what options do you think the US really has? The US Navy going to start ramming ships and sending them to the bottom?? I don't think so. Blockades in the 21st century start and end with a phone call.

IMO, some of them will still send their ships to China regardless of the fact the US is the one on the other end. Or China might use ships flagged under other countries. Unless the US sends some to the bottom, it won't work.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

IMO, some of them will still send their ships to China regardless of the fact the US is the one on the other end. Or China might use ships flagged under other countries. Unless the US sends some to the bottom, it won't work.

So now we get back to the original "blockade" question. What purpose would it serve the US to have ships in a ring blockading China? What exactly would they do? They aren't going to ram anybody so do they just say "boo" on loud speakers and hope the ships turn around??

Now do you see why I have been saying this whole blockade talk is nonsense?

 

[Steakhouse]

Globalization render naval blockade on any nation will affecting many nations included the nation subject to the naval blockade.

 

[AgentOrange]

I've been arguing for some time that this was an opportunistic deal for China, not one that was critical for it. China and Russia had been negotiating for years on price, and it's not coincidence that suddenly there was movement in the deal in the wake of the Crimea sanctions. It's not unreasonable to make an educated guess that China was able to exploit Russia's desperation in order to negotiate a good price. Until we have the details (and we may never have the details), we'll never know for sure.

But there is one other factor, about which I've been pounding the table incessantly on PDF: China simply doesn't need Russian energy, and is already extremely well diversified, which provides it with even more negotiating leverage. Do you think Saudi Arabia, Angola, Iran, Oman, Iraq, etc. would feel bound by any US sanctions against China, when China is such a major source of revenue for them? Yeah, I didn't think so, either. And with the Silk Road 2.0 project, a naval blockade becomes even less effective in terms of blocking the energy flow.

View attachment 149901

Since coal comprises the majority of energy production, and coal is fairly simple to source, that's one big obstacle for an embargo/blockade. Then there's the question of gas and oil, which again, would be extremely difficult to cut off to reach China's pain point:

View attachment 149891

View attachment 149895

Not to mention the domestic sources of energy yet to be tapped by China:

Oil
View attachment 149892

Gas
View attachment 149894

Not only are sources of energy well-diversified, but so are distribution channels:

View attachment 149897

Russia is icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Good for China, but again, this is an opportunistic move, not a strategic move.

Perhaps the LNG pipelines with Russia aren't a matter of life and death for China but given China's heavy dependence on Australian gas (an Australia that could be pressured to stop shipping), IMO, the gas deals between China and Russia still ameliorate some of China's security concerns. Very informative post, btw. I had no idea Qatar played such a huge role in China's LNG acquisition.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Globalization render naval blockade on any nation will affecting many nations included the nation subject to the naval blockade.

Even Samoa?

 

[Steakhouse]

Even Samoa?

Even Martian

 

[senheiser]

Easy enough. Numbers are for 2013, and the gap is only growing.

Population
China: 1,357m
Russia: 143.5m
Ratio: 9.45x

GDP
China: $9.2tn
Russia: $2.1tn
Ratio: 4.38x

Defense Spending (IISS)
China: $112.2bn
Russia: $68.2bn
Ratio: 1.64x

We've established that Russia is an economic, demographic, and military dwarf compared to China. Now let's establish the "partner" in the "junior partner" claim. Russia's main economic relationship with China is through energy resources:

View attachment 148721

This is the same relationship that China has with Africa, and I doubt you would consider Africa to be a peer. Indeed, this asymmetrical trade relationship will only get worse for Russia as its defense exports to China decline and its energy exports increase because of the approximately $400bn deal you helpfully highlighted. And China relies on Russian oil for less than 10% of its needs, putting it in a strong position to dictate terms.

As far as shaping the world order, it is Russia that joined China's SCO, not the other way around.

In short, does Russia need China more than China needs Russia? If yes, that means it is the junior partner. Tell me, other than energy, in what way does China need Russia? It is already an economic superpower. It already has veto power on the UNSC. It has its own self-sufficient defense industry. China has immense leverage over Russia, but I see no symmetrical Russian leverage with China.

That's my case, now please present yours. How are China and Russia equal allies? Please be so kind as to quantify your answer, as I have done.

how are America equal partners to everyone else? why does america need germany and japan? korea? saudi arabia? philliphnes? vietnam? poland? all countries who have not only smaller economy and population but also less gdp per capita while russian gdp per capita is higher than chinas.

You cant be a superpower if you have no allies, see at japan how their route turned out. You cant just except that your economy will just surpass the top dog and except everyone will follow.
Its always funny to see american hypocrisy talking about other countries.

This is the same relationship that China has with Africa, and I doubt you would consider Africa to be a peer.

except for that russian economy is as big as the whole continent africa and has 10 times less people. Therefor china has access to 1 single entity instead of various different countries

And China relies on Russian oil for less than 10% of its needs, putting it in a strong position to dictate terms.

that will soon chance its already 10% and it will increase

In short, does Russia need China more than China needs Russia? If yes, that means it is the junior partner.

and why do you think how western countries treat russia in their concept? Equals? At least with china russia can be sure its chinas only big partner everyone else has smaller economy whos allying with china and japan and other g7 countries sure wont switch sides.

Tell me, other than energy, in what way does China need Russia?

again why does america need the various countries who are poorer?

You should ratehr ask the question why shouldnt china need russia? Is it like china can choose and can except Europe, Canada, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Australia, Indian and Korea wanting to become Chinas allies?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...ldviews/files/2013/07/china-vs-usa.jpg&w=1484

@TaiShang @AgentOrange

 

[senheiser]

I've been arguing for some time that this was an opportunistic deal for China, not one that was critical for it. China and Russia had been negotiating for years on price, and it's not coincidence that suddenly there was movement in the deal in the wake of the Crimea sanctions. It's not unreasonable to make an educated guess that China was able to exploit Russia's desperation in order to negotiate a good price. Until we have the details (and we may never have the details), we'll never know for sure.

But there is one other factor, about which I've been pounding the table incessantly on PDF: China simply doesn't need Russian energy, and is already extremely well diversified, which provides it with even more negotiating leverage. Do you think Saudi Arabia, Angola, Iran, Oman, Iraq, etc. would feel bound by any US sanctions against China, when China is such a major source of revenue for them? Yeah, I didn't think so, either. And with the Silk Road 2.0 project, a naval blockade becomes even less effective in terms of blocking the energy flow.

View attachment 149901

Since coal comprises the majority of energy production, and coal is fairly simple to source, that's one big obstacle for an embargo/blockade. Then there's the question of gas and oil, which again, would be extremely difficult to cut off to reach China's pain point:

View attachment 149891

View attachment 149895

Not to mention the domestic sources of energy yet to be tapped by China:

Oil
View attachment 149892

Gas
View attachment 149894

Not only are sources of energy well-diversified, but so are distribution channels:

View attachment 149897

Russia is icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Good for China, but again, this is an opportunistic move, not a strategic move.

all sources which will be shipped and are more expensive than russian oil and gas from pipelines

 

[AgentOrange]

how are America equal partners to everyone else? why does america need germany and japan? korea? saudi arabia? philliphnes? vietnam? poland? all countries who have not only smaller economy and population but also less gdp per capita while russian gdp per capita is higher than chinas.

You cant be a superpower if you have no allies, see at japan how their route turned out. You cant just except that your economy will just surpass the top dog and except everyone will follow.
Its always funny to see american hypocrisy talking about other countries.


except for that russian economy is as big as the whole continent africa and has 10 times less people. Therefor china has access to 1 single entity instead of various different countries


that will soon chance its already 10% and it will increase


and why do you think how western countries treat russia in their concept? Equals? At least with china russia can be sure its chinas only big partner everyone else has smaller economy whos allying with china and japan and other g7 countries sure wont switch sides.


again why does america need the various countries who are poorer?

You should ratehr ask the question why shouldnt china need russia? Is it like china can choose and can except Europe, Canada, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Australia, Indian and Korea wanting to become Chinas allies?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...ldviews/files/2013/07/china-vs-usa.jpg&w=1484

@TaiShang @AgentOrange

When I and many other Chinese people refer to "equal" relationships we don't mean that both countries have the same stats - i.e. equal in economic size or population, etc. It's not an issue of pure comparison in which case there would be no "equal" relationships by that parameter. Russia and China do business as equals because both nations are viable poles in a multipolar world and both nations acknowledge each others spheres of interest and as well as core national interests. Furthermore, they're neighbors that share a long border and neither are going anywhere. We've had brief and violent border issues decades ago and both nations realized how utterly counterproductive and idiotic those were. And decades later, the Sino/Russian border is one China's most peaceful.

IMO, a lot of westerners falsely view the China/Russian relationship through the lens of America/England or America/random small European country because that's the only way some westerners can conceive of interaction between nation states - i.e. dominant vs dominated. This is patently wrong because the former is a relationship built on respect and the latter is a master/slave relationship.

China can have an equal relationship with Russia because they both share the same political, strategic, economic, and possibly military goals/ambitions. The United States, as the sole superpower, can simply not have an "equal" relationship because a stated aim of American policy is to brook no "peer competitor." Just my two cents.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

how are America equal partners to everyone else? why does america need germany and japan? korea? saudi arabia? philliphnes? vietnam? poland? all countries who have not only smaller economy and population but also less gdp per capita while russian gdp per capita is higher than chinas.

You cant be a superpower if you have no allies, see at japan how their route turned out. You cant just except that your economy will just surpass the top dog and except everyone will follow.
Its always funny to see american hypocrisy talking about other countries.


except for that russian economy is as big as the whole continent africa and has 10 times less people. Therefor china has access to 1 single entity instead of various different countries


that will soon chance its already 10% and it will increase


and why do you think how western countries treat russia in their concept? Equals? At least with china russia can be sure its chinas only big partner everyone else has smaller economy whos allying with china and japan and other g7 countries sure wont switch sides.


again why does america need the various countries who are poorer?

You should ratehr ask the question why shouldnt china need russia? Is it like china can choose and can except Europe, Canada, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan, Australia, Indian and Korea wanting to become Chinas allies?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-ap...ldviews/files/2013/07/china-vs-usa.jpg&w=1484

@TaiShang @AgentOrange

You raise some fair points. The United States likes to have allies because it provides political cover for its actions, but we have already seen that even when it cannot get the agreement of its allies, it has acted unilaterally. Indeed, after the Korean War, the military contributions of America's allies have been so insignificant that their absence would not have been noted from a military perspective (and in cases like Basra and Helmand, allies have been a burden).

The other main function of these allies is to help with American power projection. We have bases throughout the world that enable us to project power far beyond our borders. Will Russia offer China the opportunity to set up bases on Russian soil?

Finally, none of my posts have had the intention of denigrating Russia. They have merely been a response to the exaggerated notion that now that China and Russia are growing closer, they will be able to challenge America/take over the world. It's not the Chinese/Russian combination that allows this, it's China alone that allows this (much like my first paragraph, China is powerful enough to act unilaterally, but allies provide nice political cover).

I hope someday that the West and Russia can reach some accommodation, but 1,000 years of misunderstandings and hostility imply that we will probably never be allies, due to cultural differences.

 

[AgentOrange]

You raise some fair points. The United States likes to have allies because it provides political cover for its actions, but we have already seen that even when it cannot get the agreement of its allies, it has acted unilaterally. Indeed, after the Korean War, the military contributions of America's allies have been so insignificant that their absence would not have been noted from a military perspective (and in cases like Basra and Helmand, allies have been a burden).

The other main function of these allies is to help with American power projection. We have bases throughout the world that enable us to project power far beyond our borders. Will Russia offer China the opportunity to set up bases on Russian soil?

Finally, none of my posts have had the intention of denigrating Russia. They have merely been a response to the exaggerated notion that now that China and Russia are growing closer, they will be able to challenge America/take over the world. It's not the Chinese/Russian combination that allows this, it's China alone that allows this (much like my first paragraph, China is powerful enough to act unilaterally, but allies provide nice political cover).

I hope someday that the West and Russia can reach some accommodation, but 1,000 years of misunderstandings and hostility imply that we will probably never be allies, due to cultural differences.

Good points. I'd like to put forth that I can't conceive of any possibility where China/Russia would take over the world. I think that's a major point where people often talk at/past one another but not talk to one another. IMO, China/Russia desire a multi-polar world where the US would think twice before acting unilaterally or possibly be constrained where that wasn't the case. In such a situation, the US, by sheer military strength, would still be "First amongst equals", even when China has the world's largest economy.

Also, I personally can't imagine a single situation where China would base soldiers overseas. Short of friendly ports, etc, China has never been "adventurous" overseas.

 

[Aepsilons]

Also, I personally can't imagine a single situation where China would base soldiers overseas. Short of friendly ports, etc, China has never been "adventurous" overseas.

This is going to have to change. Speaking objectively here, in with Chinese interests in mind, I would say that China will need to get used to the idea of protecting its strategic interests abroad. For one, China has an overwhelming clout in Africa, which is the source of China's raw resource imports. Given the instability of that region of the world, and rising security threats , it will be a necessity for China's PLAN, PLA to be sent for expeditionary missions in the event of some kind of exigency. There's almost 1 million overseas Chinese in Africa and these are Chinese National Citizens. I would not trust the security and protection of China's citizens to local African Governments. If we judge the failure of Nigeria's own security forces to protect its own citizens against terrorists such as Boko Haram, imagine of its ability to protect Chinese minorities' rights.

No, China will have to send its armed forces abroad to advocate their rights. Just as what the United States does for its own. Just as what the JSDF does for our citizens.

Why 1 million Chinese migrants are building a new empire in Africa – Quartz