China Projecting Power in South and East China Seas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dilandu said:
Because US managed to annoy all three to the point, that all three benefited from weakening the US position. Russia is more ambivalent, because we actually have reasons to be wary about China, too - but America managed to became our more immediate concern, than possible future alteration with China.
Click to expand...

Has America grown into a concern because of Ukraine & Syria? I would think a rapidly developing military next to the Siberian Resource Reserves would cause some discomfort. AFAIK Russia is currently allowing Chinese companies/workers to extract resources from there.
 
In_A_Dream said:
Has America grown into a concern because of Ukraine & Syria?
Click to expand...
Actually, because of Serbia and Iraq-2003. After which it became apparent that America does not consider itself bound by rules, that it demanded from others. This was the first turning point in our public perception; the fear, that even obedience to the rules would not guarantee our safety. Then was Georgia-2008, when Western countries firmly supported one side, without any interest to actually investigate rather complex background of the conflict. Essentially Russia was declared "wrong by definition". After that, resentment started to arise. Ukraine was basically the last straw; the blatant attempt to deny us ANY sphere of influence, by bringing the nationalistic anti-Russian government to power, led to resentment transforming into anger and open hostility. That's how we, Russians, view the situation.

I would not deny, that Russia wasn't actually a nice neighbor either. But West carries its part of the blame for current hostility. After the fall of USSR, peoples of Russia hoped, that they would be treated as "first world citizens", and Russia remaining interests would be respected. Instead, we were met with prolonged hostility - leftower of the Cold War - open preference by West of anti-Russian regimes around our borders, and refusal to consider ANY our interests as valid. So hopes were quickly dashed, and revanche concepts grew out of wounded national pride.
 
Dilandu At the risk of incurring the wrath of other posters and the moderaters it goes back to the assurances the Western powers gave to Gorbachev that NATO would not extend eastwards if Russia allowed a unified Germany to join the Alliance.
This was soon undermined by the panicked Western reaction to the Yugoslav Civil War which allowed Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland to get US support for NATO membership.
Yeltsin's Presidency was a missed opportunity for both Russia and the West. A stronger and more honest leader could have held the US and UK to its promises to Gorbachev. In turn he would have curbed the awful Milosevic.
I have deep sympathy with Russia over those lost years.
 
Dilandu said:
In_A_Dream said:
Has America grown into a concern because of Ukraine & Syria?
Click to expand...
Actually, because of Serbia and Iraq-2003. After which it became apparent that America does not consider itself bound by rules, that it demanded from others. This was the first turning point in our public perception; the fear, that even obedience to the rules would not guarantee our safety. Then was Georgia-2008, when Western countries firmly supported one side, without any interest to actually investigate rather complex background of the conflict. Essentially Russia was declared "wrong by definition". After that, resentment started to arise. Ukraine was basically the last straw; the blatant attempt to deny us ANY sphere of influence, by bringing the nationalistic anti-Russian government to power, led to resentment transforming into anger and open hostility. That's how we, Russians, view the situation.

I would not deny, that Russia wasn't actually a nice neighbor either. But West carries its part of the blame for current hostility. After the fall of USSR, peoples of Russia hoped, that they would be treated as "first world citizens", and Russia remaining interests would be respected. Instead, we were met with prolonged hostility - leftower of the Cold War - open preference by West of anti-Russian regimes around our borders, and refusal to consider ANY our interests as valid. So hopes were quickly dashed, and revanche concepts grew out of wounded national pride.
Click to expand...
That's why it's important to hold leadership accountable. Not that I'm a fan of Putin, but I think he rose to power because Russia needed someone to out-wit the west. But in the interest of the oligarchy, not necessarily the citizens.

Back on topic, what will be the straw that will break the camel's back in the SCS? It's a steady game of increasing agitation towards all parties, something's going to pop eventually. Chinese are full of nationalistic pride right now, they see it as their time to overtake the West. I wonder if someone will get a hot head and an accident will occur?
 
Dilandu said:
After the fall of USSR, peoples of Russia hoped, that they would be treated as "first world citizens", and Russia remaining interests would be respected. Instead, we were met with prolonged hostility - leftower of the Cold War - open preference by West of anti-Russian regimes around our borders, and refusal to consider ANY our interests as valid. So hopes were quickly dashed, and revanche concepts grew out of wounded national pride.
Click to expand...

You have to remember: in the early 90's, Russia had just spent the previous forty years threatening to murder every American man woman and child with nuclear weapons. You don't exactly forget that overnight. How long did it take Russia to become best pals with Germany? Do you welcome, say, the Luftwaffe to do flyovers of Moscow?

Russia had spent seventy years dominated by the most murderous ideology to spring up in a millenium. A *lot* of us were skeptical that y'all had just suddenly decided to turn over a new leaf overnight.

View: https://youtu.be/z77JFw2D6f8?t=35
 
Dilandu said:
Orionblamblam said:
You have to remember: in the early 90's, Russia had just spent the previous forty years threatening to murder every American man woman and child with nuclear
Click to expand...
And US spend even more times threatening exactly the same against USSR, so what?
Click to expand...

Difference being: the US didn't run themselves a Holodomor. The US had several opportunities to nuke the Soviet Union into non-existence with little consequence: up until the early 50's, there was FA the USSR could really do in response had Truman decided to unleash Patton and Lemay and a rain of nukes. And the US did no such thing. Few people would honestly expect that Stalin wouldn't steamroll anyone he wanted to (like, say, South Korea or Hungary or Berlin or Czechoslavakia or Finland or Poland or... anyone in reach, basically), or the politbureau dirtbags who followed him. There is no rational comparison between the US and the USSR: the USSR was based entirely on a system of pure criminality. When the US does bad things, it's because the US has fallen below its standards. When communists do bad things, it's because that's what the system calls for.

The point of all this isn't to get into yet another political squabble, but to explain why the US didn't immediately fall in love with Russia. The USSR and communism in general had, as pointed out, spent seventy years one-upping the Nazis in terms of criminal awfulness. It is *insanity* to welcome a murderer into your embrace mere moments after they suddenly decide they don't want to be like that anymore.

The Russian people can be all kinds of awesome. But the Russian government was still composed of a whole lot of people who had served the communists. The Russian military still had a boatload of ICBMs pointed at *me.*

When Germany and Japan decided that they didn't want to be Americas enemy anymore, they stopped pointing weapons at the US. And soon enough, the US was good friends with Germany and Japan. We appreciate not having guns pointed at our heads by people who say they're not our enemies. maybe we're weird that way.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Difference being: the US didn't run themselves a Holodomor.
Click to expand...
Americans starved to death about a million of Filipino, invaded Mexico and other neighbor countries, and even participated in intervention in Russia in 1920s. And of course, American system is also based on pure criminality, which demonstrated in countless criminal actions against sovereign countries made by American military.

So what?
 
Dilandu said:
Orionblamblam said:
Difference being: the US didn't run themselves a Holodomor.
Click to expand...
Americans starved to death about a million of Filipino, invaded Mexico and other neighbor countries, and even participated in intervention in Russia in 1920s. And of course, American system is also based on pure criminality, which demonstrated in countless criminal actions against sovereign countries made by American military.

So what?
Click to expand...
We went a little too far off topic. And anyway, Filipinos are very pro-Americans.
 
I think all countries have blood on their hands so that we all can choose to be fearful and paranoid about one another if we get tangled up in history.
The impact of the nightmare wars in the former Yugoslavia faded as we all focussed on the horrors of Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
Yet their legacy is profound. Moslems remember Europe being seemingly indifferent to genocide in Bosnia because the victims were not Christians and so not Europeans.
For Russia, NATO's overwhelming use of airpower against an Orthodox Slav country showed that long held fears of US power were valid.
But for Blair and Clinton then Bush it created the justification for Anglo Saxon intervention to safeguard liberty.
This toxic legacy colours our attitude to China and tends again towards "something must be done". But China for all the crimes against the Huijas or in Hong Kong is not Serbia or even the former Soviet Union.
It is the most populous nation on Earth and may soon be its biggest economy.
Appeasement has become a dirty word in British politics. But it sprang from a realisation that modern war on the scale of 1914-18 fought in 1936 might destroy civilisation. It didn't unless you lived in the ruins of Rotterdam Stalingrad or Dresden.
Between "doing something" and "appeasement" there is a middle course. We need to stick to it.
 
bobbymike said:
Orionblamblam said:
Dilandu said:
Orionblamblam said:
You have to remember: in the early 90's, Russia had just spent the previous forty years threatening to murder every American man woman and child with nuclear
Click to expand...
And US spend even more times threatening exactly the same against USSR, so what?
Click to expand...

Difference being: the US didn't run themselves a Holodomor. The US had several opportunities to nuke the Soviet Union into non-existence with little consequence: up until the early 50's, there was FA the USSR could really do in response had Truman decided to unleash Patton and Lemay and a rain of nukes. And the US did no such thing. Few people would honestly expect that Stalin wouldn't steamroll anyone he wanted to (like, say, South Korea or Hungary or Berlin or Czechoslavakia or Finland or Poland or... anyone in reach, basically), or the politbureau dirtbags who followed him. There is no rational comparison between the US and the USSR: the USSR was based entirely on a system of pure criminality. When the US does bad things, it's because the US has fallen below its standards. When communists do bad things, it's because that's what the system calls for.

The point of all this isn't to get into yet another political squabble, but to explain why the US didn't immediately fall in love with Russia. The USSR and communism in general had, as pointed out, spent seventy years one-upping the Nazis in terms of criminal awfulness. It is *insanity* to welcome a murderer into your embrace mere moments after they suddenly decide they don't want to be like that anymore.

The Russian people can be all kinds of awesome. But the Russian government was still composed of a whole lot of people who had served the communists. The Russian military still had a boatload of ICBMs pointed at *me.*

When Germany and Japan decided that they didn't want to be Americas enemy anymore, they stopped pointing weapons at the US. And soon enough, the US was good friends with Germany and Japan. We appreciate not having guns pointed at our heads by people who say they're not our enemies. maybe we're weird that way.
Click to expand...
My fingers poised over the keyboard and OBB posts my thoughts before I hit reply…..
Click to expand...

I think most people forget that the USSR was invited to receive funds from the Marshall plan yet refused, repeatedly. Not a winning argument to imply the US and USSR were the opposite sides of the same evil coin.
 
uk 75 said:
I think all countries have blood on their hands so that we all can choose to be fearful and paranoid about one another if we get tangled up in history.
The impact of the nightmare wars in the former Yugoslavia faded as we all focussed on the horrors of Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
Yet their legacy is profound. Moslems remember Europe being seemingly indifferent to genocide in Bosnia because the victims were not Christians and so not Europeans.
For Russia, NATO's overwhelming use of airpower against an Orthodox Slav country showed that long held fears of US power were valid.
But for Blair and Clinton then Bush it created the justification for Anglo Saxon intervention to safeguard liberty.
This toxic legacy colours our attitude to China and tends again towards "something must be done". But China for all the crimes against the Huijas or in Hong Kong is not Serbia or even the former Soviet Union.
It is the most populous nation on Earth and may soon be its biggest economy.
Appeasement has become a dirty word in British politics. But it sprang from a realisation that modern war on the scale of 1914-18 fought in 1936 might destroy civilisation. It didn't unless you lived in the ruins of Rotterdam Stalingrad or Dresden.
Between "doing something" and "appeasement" there is a middle course. We need to stick to it.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...

During WW2, democracy and (arguably) the USSR was saved by the industrial power of the US. The Russians arrived in Berlin in US trucks wearing US boots and possessing ~14,000 US planes. Even so, it took 4 years to engage that manufacturing prowess to produce the material required. One doesn't produce a new fighter plant overnight.

That being said, the US does not possess the manufacturing base today that enabled that pivot.The abundance of machine tool manufacturers are gone. Thus, it is incumbent on all like governed nations to more diligently check those systems (like the ccp) that would reverse the freedoms and liberty we enjoy.

I would suggest if one wants to encourage a middle course, build local, buy local, buy often.

Or...don't.
 
Foo Fighter said:
With the Russians actually claiming to have opened fire on a RN vessel and the increased tension in the SCS, I think it probable that there will be enough tension for a limited local exchange which just might cause everyone to step back a bit. I hope those involved are calmer and have more level heads than their upper echelons.
Click to expand...

The Russian government seeks relevance. Their population is dropping precipitously (143m) and their economy is smaller than Canada (38m).
 
I fully understand the influence of the eu is getting too close to Russia. Belarus is going to fall too, however, The PRC is a much bigger threat and they will not be happy to just have access to resources for long. They deal with long term plans our people claim to understand but plainly do not. I want to see a strong and healthy Russia and that requires cooperation rather than propaganda projects. Does anyone really believe the PRC have anything other than domination of the entire region planned? The military situation is dire and THAT looks like being closer to a nuclear exchange than I have seen for a LONG time.
 
The West needs to get over its "something must be done" mentality.
The right option in 2001 was to let the Warlords run Afghanistan and leave them to it afterwards as the US wanted to do. But the Germans and other do gooders forced us into an open ended commitment.
Result the same warlords are now having to beat the Taliban all over again, if they can.
Same with China. However unpleasant China is inside its own borders there is nothing the West can do to make things better.
China's neighbours like India, Japan and Vietnam are big enough and bad enough to give Beijing adventurism a bloody nose.
 
uk 75 said:
China's neighbours like India, Japan and Vietnam are big enough and bad enough to give Beijing adventurism a bloody nose.
Click to expand...
Together perhaps.
 
And the UK has a carrier there as well. Must be because of all the exemplary behavior by the Chinese government in the South/East China seas. Japan and SK looking at carriers too. Yep. China is the neighbor everybody wants.
 
The West.has failed comprehensively in the Middle East and Afghanistan despite our overwhelming military, economic and populations.
Now the people who brought you that one are using the same (look what they do to their own people etc) arguments to pick a fight with the world's most populus, nearly first economic and second most militarily powerful country.
Good job the US cant even protect tankers in the Gulf or save cities in Afghanistan.
Mr Xi possibly not very frightened.
 
We are where we are.
The West has done well out of the economic rise of China, which probably was the single factor in reducing costs and prices and inflation from our economies.
China has remained a one party totalitarian state throughout. Its treatment of its own people and bullying behaviour to neighbours like India and Vietnam was known throughout.
The US love of "Regime Change" seems to forget that since the Second World War its efforts in this regard have been pretty useless.. Remove Siahnouk get Pol Pot. Remove Saddam get Iran and Isis.
If the US cannot even control or remove the Kim dynasty in North.Korea I dont think all the rhetoric in the world is going to alarm Mr Xi.
As for Appeasement it was the US Government followed by all the rest of us who recognised China's view of Taiwan by closing Embassies. China's territorial demands have all been acquiesced in from Tibet to Taipei.
Ok settle down my excitable friends.
No I am not reccommending peace at all costs.
Allies in the region like India, Vietnam, and Japan should receive NATO Article V style support IF they merit it..For Taiwan it is too late. We sold the pass half a century ago.
Economically China needs us as much as we need it. Use our arguments sensibly.and drive hard bargains whenever we can.
Africa and other parts of the world will not be as easy to deal with as China thinks. It will fail as the US and Soviet Union did.
Americans dismiss the rest of the world almost like Mr Xi. The UK may be stupidly sentimental about the social club that is the Commonwealth but it reminds us constantly that other countries matter.
When the time comes, the Chinese people will choose different leaders. It may be bloody and chaotic or boring and bureaucratic but Americans and Brits wont be the ones choosing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom