Trump's USA to Initiate Nixon-Kissinger-type Strategy with Russia against China

[ChineseTiger1986]

In contrast, today's Russia and US have no common enemy. (China is Russia's ally and China isn't exact an enemy of US either, it is more of a tough competition.) They are also in direct conflict with each other and US' major allies will not tolerate an alliance with Russia.

If Trump wants to consider China as an enemy and to fight it, then let him be.

However, he has to fight China single handedly with no single ally following him.

 

[tranquilium]

If Trump wants to consider China as an enemy and to fight it, then let him be.

However, he has to fight China single handedly with no single ally following him.

I have decided to take everything Trump said with a huge grain of salt. For example, he also said within first 100 days of his term, he would, I quote, "If I'm elected president, I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress". So basically a guy with absolutely no politcal background, no backing is gonna walking into the house of the true power holders in US and they are just gonna give up their power willingly. Yeah, that would happen.

 

[shadows888]

one other thing that many haven't brought up.. is Russia knows every 4 years the USA can change their damm minds and who knows who is going to be after trump. while the Chinese leadership is here to stay... if you burn china for no reason, your going to suffer for a long time. Putin will understand this.

 

[Nan Yang]

Trump Reset 2017 Revision ?

 

[rott]

If Trump wants to consider China as an enemy and to fight it, then let him be.

However, he has to fight China single handedly with no single ally following him.

US has never fought a major war by itself. The last time they fought a war just by themselves was with Vietnam and we all know how that had gone. Now all one needs to do is multiply Vietnam 50x and you'd get one China.

 

[Huan]

US has never fought a major war by itself. The last time they fought a war just by themselves was with Vietnam and we all know how that had gone. Now all one needs to do is multiply Vietnam 50x and you'd get one China.

Be careful, Vietnam and other US Asian allies might be used as proxy war or meat shields along the way.

 

[tranquilium]

Be careful, Vietnam and other US Asian allies might be used as proxy war or meat shields along the way.

Meh, in each of the previous proxy war scenarios, the stronger nation has to be the aggressor. The reason is two-fold:

1. To even out the stronger nation's advantage, the war has to happen on the home soil of the weaker nation. For example, USSR's war in Afghanistan requires USSR to maintain an extremely long supply line. Similarly, US' war in Vietnam is the same situation.

2. The smaller proxy is not suicidal. The Afghans and Vietnamese in the previous examples are not stupid enough to start a war with the stronger nation.

Since China is not planning a military invasion of any nation, the proxy war or meat shield argument doesn't apply.

 

[Shotgunner51]

Come on guys, do we need to bring nuclear bomb and all these things in every rational discussion....Some one can win the war without even using nuclear weapon too....

China's nuclear arsenal is unknown even to American military. building more nukes is easy for China. the West keep saying China nuclear stockpiles is small hoping China would be angry and come out in public with a true number. Chinese leaders too smart for that. no sense revealing your actual nukes.

Even the most conservative estimates by NTI are:

https://defence.pk/threads/chinas-294-megatons-of-thermonuclear-deterrence.107079/

No small tactical warheads, all LARGE STRATEGIC

Agree. Guys, let's not derail this thread to thermonuclear MAD-ness, stay on topic.

 

[Indika]

When the backstabbers get back stabbed.....is it called karma?

I believe Russia will certainly not let opportunity slip away. No point in eternally opposing US, make some amends and get better on economic front. They are all westerners any way, will fight each other and also close ranks.

 

[fadine]

US has never fought a major war by itself. The last time they fought a war just by themselves was with Vietnam and we all know how that had gone. Now all one needs to do is multiply Vietnam 50x and you'd get one China.

50x , I remember china and Campodia Khmer Rouge are not equal one Vietnam.

 

[T-Rex]

There's no input from the US patriots like @gambit in this conversation, that is really strange.

 

[deckingraj]

Erm, let me translate that "So you are saying that in order for you to ease your one-sided sanction on us, we have to do what you say and cut off trading with our biggest trade partner?" Dude, I think at this point you are insulting Russian people's IQ.

.... i am not sure whose IQ is getting insulted here....now please listen one more time...all i said is that they have a bargaining chip...that is not equivalent to dump china...if we are looking from trade perspective then biggest trading partner is US......so geo-politics is a different ball game.....

 

[deckingraj]

Are you saying the Russians were wrong to be angry with America after they sanctioned them?

Just think about it from their perspective. It's not just the economic loss, since they did not trade much to begin with. It's a matter of pride.

Why don't you ask a Russian member here, like our Think Tank @vostok.

What i am saying is that since those sanctions means nothing it should not have hit Russian economy a bit...and i clearly see that is not the case...so Russians should and are pissed with Americans...it is you who is suggesting that those sanctions had no effect on Russian economy...i hope i am clear this time...

 

[anon45]

i dont see it. If ties with China get frostier then I see the US being able to allocate more power to the Pacific, but Russia has enough on its plate, and Russia doesn't hold the same level of hostilities that they did during the nixon kissinger times (which was almost open conflict), so there is less benefit for Russia. It might slow the decline of Russian influence in central Asia though as Russia can refocus on that region.

Long story short, I can see a detente between the US and Russia if the US throws the Baltics under the bus, but not cooperation against China, not unless some recent incident can be used to justify hostilities.

 

[Huan]

There's no input from the US patriots like @gambit in this conversation, that is really strange.[/QUOTE

Indeed, I would also think gambit would be enthusiastic about this Trump strategy and his intentions.

Meh, in each of the previous proxy war scenarios, the stronger nation has to be the aggressor. The reason is two-fold:

1. To even out the stronger nation's advantage, the war has to happen on the home soil of the weaker nation. For example, USSR's war in Afghanistan requires USSR to maintain an extremely long supply line. Similarly, US' war in Vietnam is the same situation.

2. The smaller proxy is not suicidal. The Afghans and Vietnamese in the previous examples are not stupid enough to start a war with the stronger nation.

Since China is not planning a military invasion of any nation, the proxy war or meat shield argument doesn't apply.

With Trump, it would not even matter if China is planning an invasion or not. Facts, science, and reasons don't work well with the Trump himself. You will have to anticipate worst outcomes as true reality with President Trump. Expect the unexpected, expect the irrational.