At 3/16/14 02:36 PM, TheMason wrote: China and Russia are NOT friends but actually bitter rivals. In any conflict, I see the US and China as allies against Russia.

For what possible reason? Their foreign policies are nearly identical.

Likewise, as an end to the Democratic Peace theory, I could see India (a regional power on the rise to global power) coming into conflict with China. Recently they have been developing military technology with Russia...so I could see Russia & India aligned against US & China.

Guess who also has been developing military technology with Russia? China.

At 3/17/14 02:38 PM, Warforger wrote: For what possible reason? Their foreign policies are nearly identical.

Think America and France. They do a lot of thing together, but the French do have a good amount of disdain for the US and will oppose it at the drop of a hat when it fits them. China feels the same with Russia. Russia helped them become Communist and then pretty much abandoned them in the mid 20th Century. So while China and Russia have a lot of mutual interest, China is antagonistic with Russia enough to openly go against them when it suits China.

At 3/17/14 02:38 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 3/16/14 02:36 PM, TheMason wrote: China and Russia are NOT friends but actually bitter rivals. In any conflict, I see the US and China as allies against Russia.

For what possible reason? Their foreign policies are nearly identical.

Um...no.

The Chinese are a lot more practical. They would not endanger their domestic economy to make gains against Taiwan...or push into N. Korea.

Likewise, as an end to the Democratic Peace theory, I could see India (a regional power on the rise to global power) coming into conflict with China. Recently they have been developing military technology with Russia...so I could see Russia & India aligned against US & China.

Guess who also has been developing military technology with Russia? China.

Yes and no. The Chinese have used the Russians...however they've started going their own way. Their newest generation of fighters are more like copies of our aircraft than a MiG or Sukhoi. They copy and add to what they feel are the best equipment.

At 3/17/14 07:01 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Think America and France. They do a lot of thing together, but the French do have a good amount of disdain for the US and will oppose it at the drop of a hat when it fits them. China feels the same with Russia. Russia helped them become Communist and then pretty much abandoned them in the mid 20th Century. So while China and Russia have a lot of mutual interest, China is antagonistic with Russia enough to openly go against them when it suits China.

Exactly they have their differences, but they're not going to go to war over them because politically they're allies. Russia and China have similar political systems and the same condemnations, along with the same allies. Everytime there's some dictatorship Russia and China are there sending their support in opposition to the US. It's like Pre-WWI Britain and France, yes they have their own tensions and historical issues, but there's a bigger threat in play and the tensions are so insignificant that nothing will come of them. Basically, if China and the US fight Russia and win, well then the next conflict is US and China. If Russia and China fight the US and win, there's a lesser possibility that the next conflict will be Russia and China.

Put this in perspective, back when the Soviet Union ran the Eastern Bloc the Yugoslavians, Romanians and Polish Communists ran self-serving foreign policies getting out of the strict control of the USSR, the Yugoslavs of course being more famous but Poland and Romania getting in Western loans, Nixon visiting Romania, Romania joining GATT etc. etc. yet the USSR did not invade them. Czechoslovakia around the same time began making democratic reforms whilst trying to stay allies with the USSR and openly stated that, but they were downright invaded by the USSR and downright deposed. This is because while the Yugoslavs, Romanians and Polish Communist parties along with the Albanian Communist Party all ran contrary foreign policies to the USSR, their fundamental system of government was the same so they did not pose a real threat. Czechoslovakia going democratic on the other hand posed a grave danger to the political system of the USSR and so it was invaded and deposed. The Soviets were correct in assuming this because when Gorbachev took power and did the same thing it got out of control and Communism fell.

Thus while the Russians and Chinese may have their differences, none of them are enough to make them so antagonistic that the US will be able to side with the Chinese. Russia more or less seeks good relations with China because whereas their economy stalled the Chinese economy boomed and so they openly seek Chinese investment in the far east. On top of this both countries have enough problems with internal politics, both would like their really long border secure.

At 3/17/14 10:59 PM, TheMason wrote: Um...no.

The Chinese are a lot more practical. They would not endanger their domestic economy to make gains against Taiwan...or push into N. Korea.

Well aside from Ukraine, what's their stance on Sudan? Gaddaffi-Libya? Assad-Syria? Iran? Venezuela? Cuba? That's more of what I meant, not country specific issues like Crimea.

Yes and no. The Chinese have used the Russians...however they've started going their own way. Their newest generation of fighters are more like copies of our aircraft than a MiG or Sukhoi. They copy and add to what they feel are the best equipment.

No I mean the same programs India has with Russia China has with Russia where the Russians help train their soldiers and provide equipment.

amazes propaganda and lies about what is happening in Ukraine)

Putin doesn't want Western Ukraine, because it's full of Ukrainians. As shocking as the past 24 hours has been I really doubt Putin's long term strategy is to retake the entirety of Ukraine. He's not a rational actor but he's not an idiot either. For the first time in a pretty long while, Russia has proved that a developed regional power can annex territory from a sovereign state in a blatant imperial conquest with virtually superficial consequences. I hear a lot of people make the argument that Putin lost before he even began when the Ruble and the Russian stock market started falling but that's obviously completely false -- Putin is not a Westerner, and he sure as hell doesn't think like one. The driving motive behind the annexation of Crimea was nationalist politics, not economics.

At 3/18/14 12:16 AM, Warforger wrote: Well aside from Ukraine, what's their stance on Sudan? Gaddaffi-Libya? Assad-Syria? Iran? Venezuela? Cuba? That's more of what I meant, not country specific issues like Crimea.

China and Russia are not a unified bloc. Russia is a troll that pisses off the West, while China is a wildcard. Sometimes their interests overlap but don't mistake that for an alliance. China does not want to set precedent in supporting revolutionaries and foreign intervention-- Tibet and Taiwan should be obvious examples as to why they take a non-interventionist stance. Russia likes to take a "balancing" role to counteract Western interests - the Fox News of geopolitics, if you will.

At 3/21/14 02:37 PM, Feoric wrote: China and Russia are not a unified bloc. Russia is a troll that pisses off the West, while China is a wildcard. Sometimes their interests overlap but don't mistake that for an alliance. China does not want to set precedent in supporting revolutionaries and foreign intervention-- Tibet and Taiwan should be obvious examples as to why they take a non-interventionist stance. Russia likes to take a "balancing" role to counteract Western interests - the Fox News of geopolitics, if you will.

Yes, but what I'm trying to say is that while their motives may be different their objectives are basically the same, so it's a bit insane that these two powers would go to war with the US joining them simply because of some border issues. It'd be like if the US went to war with France and Germany because they didn't help invade Iraq.

At 3/18/14 12:16 AM, Warforger wrote:

Well aside from Ukraine, what's their stance on Sudan? Gaddaffi-Libya? Assad-Syria? Iran? Venezuela? Cuba? That's more of what I meant, not country specific issues like Crimea.

China's stance is whatever goes on domestically inside a country is that country's business. It's not like the West where we feel that we need to intervene to feed starving child or keep X minority from being exterminated by Y majority.

And what consequence is that to what I was saying? None really. What will matter in a future conflict is:
* What would be seen as enough in China's/US's/Russia's best interests to go to war with Russia, US, or even India?
* How would the other countries see their best interest in being served in a war between these two powers? Would it be better to get involved or let them fight it out and bloody each other?

If Russia and China were to go at it for whatever reason...then I see the US deciding to intervene on the side of China since so much of American business is done with China and we sell a ton of bond debt to them. (Thus a victorious China...or at least a status quo China would be in our best interest.)

Yes and no. The Chinese have used the Russians...however they've started going their own way. Their newest generation of fighters are more like copies of our aircraft than a MiG or Sukhoi. They copy and add to what they feel are the best equipment.

No I mean the same programs India has with Russia China has with Russia where the Russians help train their soldiers and provide equipment.

Yes I know what you said and my answer remains the same. Does China use Russian military tech? Yes, it's cheaper than American tech and the Russians are willing to sell stripped down versions. However, the Chinese have over the past 20 years started going their own way and developing tech of their own so they can not be dependent on the Russians.

Meanwhile, the Russians and Indians have been cooperating on new designs. One MiG was even given the moniker: 'Raptor Killer'.

At 3/21/14 03:04 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 3/21/14 02:37 PM, Feoric wrote: China and Russia are not a unified bloc. Russia is a troll that pisses off the West, while China is a wildcard. Sometimes their interests overlap but don't mistake that for an alliance. China does not want to set precedent in supporting revolutionaries and foreign intervention-- Tibet and Taiwan should be obvious examples as to why they take a non-interventionist stance. Russia likes to take a "balancing" role to counteract Western interests - the Fox News of geopolitics, if you will.

Yes, but what I'm trying to say is that while their motives may be different their objectives are basically the same, so it's a bit insane that these two powers would go to war with the US joining them simply because of some border issues. It'd be like if the US went to war with France and Germany because they didn't help invade Iraq.

No...more insane like the beginning of WWI...maybe WWII. Russia could begin trying to help with N. Korea they same way they 'helped' in Syria. This would bring the DPRK more into Russia's sphere of influence and out of China's sphere of influence. Pyongyang does not play well with their neighbors so an abduction of an actor, shelling of an island, or missile test gone wrong (a test missile does damage to China, Japan, S. Korea, or Hawaii/Alaska)...and the spark is lit.

I'm not claiming to know specifics...but I think the region has the potential to be a tinderbox. And I further think the alliances will not be what most people think they will be.

At 3/21/14 05:35 PM, TheMason wrote: China's stance is whatever goes on domestically inside a country is that country's business. It's not like the West where we feel that we need to intervene to feed starving child or keep X minority from being exterminated by Y majority.

And what consequence is that to what I was saying? None really. What will matter in a future conflict is:
* What would be seen as enough in China's/US's/Russia's best interests to go to war with Russia, US, or even India?
* How would the other countries see their best interest in being served in a war between these two powers? Would it be better to get involved or let them fight it out and bloody each other?

If Russia and China were to go at it for whatever reason...then I see the US deciding to intervene on the side of China since so much of American business is done with China and we sell a ton of bond debt to them. (Thus a victorious China...or at least a status quo China would be in our best interest.)

Right, and who would be more likely to go to war? Subservient Russia and China or the US and China? Considering all Russia's done with China is try to be friends with an uncaring China and all the US has done is condemn and limit their influence I think it's clear.

No...more insane like the beginning of WWI...maybe WWII. Russia could begin trying to help with N. Korea they same way they 'helped' in Syria. This would bring the DPRK more into Russia's sphere of influence and out of China's sphere of influence. Pyongyang does not play well with their neighbors so an abduction of an actor, shelling of an island, or missile test gone wrong (a test missile does damage to China, Japan, S. Korea, or Hawaii/Alaska)...and the spark is lit.

And for what purpose would Russia piss China off in N. Korea? Why would they piss of someone who has the same foreign policy objectives everywhere in the world?

I'm not claiming to know specifics...but I think the region has the potential to be a tinderbox. And I further think the alliances will not be what most people think they will be.

Maybe, but what I'm saying is that to say that China and Russia are going to go to war when neither have anything to get out of it to me is ridiculous especially after the fact that they've demilitarized their borders dismantling much of the military forces stationed between them. Given the fact that Russia actively helps China and helps train their military I doubt China is looking to invade Russia but rather be more assertive vs. the US.

At 3/21/14 11:48 PM, Korriken wrote: Thinking on it further, my prediction would be that Russia is going to try and take at LEAST enough of Ukraine so that Crimea and Russia are connected. That way, Russia can access Crimea by land without having to deal with passing through another country.

Not so sure about that. Russia has been just fine with the Kaliningrad Oblast being separated from the rest of the country. I don't see why having Crimea being also separated would be an issue.

At 3/21/14 11:48 PM, Korriken wrote: Thinking on it further, my prediction would be that Russia is going to try and take at LEAST enough of Ukraine so that Crimea and Russia are connected. That way, Russia can access Crimea by land without having to deal with passing through another country.

Crimea's already connected though, the Eastern part links up with mainland Russia over a small gap which has already been bridged. Although why would Russia care? Even before this whole crisis it had soldiers stationed in Ukraine.

At 3/21/14 11:24 PM, Warforger wrote: Right, and who would be more likely to go to war? Subservient Russia and China or the US and China? Considering all Russia's done with China is try to be friends with an uncaring China and all the US has done is condemn and limit their influence I think it's clear.

Who is subservient between the US and China? China?

No they are not as militarily capable...but they are an economic powerhouse. We hold each other by the short & curlies.

And don't paint the Russians as 'just wanting to be friends'...they are a power that has Imperial amibitions. They want to expand.

Also, the history between China and Russia is far longer and far bloodier than the 100 year history between the US and China.

Is the answer clear? Yes...but you refuse to see it.

And for what purpose would Russia piss China off in N. Korea? Why would they piss of someone who has the same foreign policy objectives everywhere in the world?

*sigh*

It has nothing to do with foreign policy. They care more about their own domestic interests than international interests. If Russia or China felt that their domestic power were threatened and war with a certain country...they would go to war with that country whomever it was.

As for N. Korea specifically...they've done it before throughout the Cold War. China and Russia often used Pyongyang to one-up one another. As Russia gets back up after getting knocked on their ass in the 1980s and 1990s...and now that they are returning to old habits...why wouldn't they return to this old habit?

1) The DPRK does share a border with Russia and is a source of cheap labor for hard jobs (such as lumber jacks in Siberia).
2) Involvement with DPRK does undermine both China and the US.

Makes perfect sense.

Maybe, but what I'm saying is that to say that China and Russia are going to go to war when neither have anything to get out of it to me is ridiculous especially after the fact that they've demilitarized their borders dismantling much of the military forces stationed between them. Given the fact that Russia actively helps China and helps train their military I doubt China is looking to invade Russia but rather be more assertive vs. the US.

Well...if all that were the case you'd be right in thinking it ridiculous.

But you're wrong.

1) Borders, in the cyber/air/TBM age can easily and quickly be re-militarized.
2) We have had military training exercises with Russia...but guess what? It all means shit. China and the Russians are going their separate ways in terms of the military...whatever you assert. If you look at the history they were never that close. Any military cooperation was purely for them to gain military capabilities that is more in keeping with their military philosophy and doctrine. The West is about quality over quantity. Russia and China are about overwhelming quality with quantity. Russian jets are cheaper. The AK-47 is superior to Western rifles in everything but long range accuracy (the least important thing for an assault rifle).

In the end, any military cooperation between China and Russia is born out of convenience...NOT loyalty or bonds of kinship. After all both countries have lingering racial prejudices against the other.

I am Ukrainian . My family is Ukrainian . Despite what you may hear or CNN we do not want any part of EU .

There a big difference between war for freedom and political propaganda . Ukrainian protesters are very racists . They want to push Russian speaking families who are Ukrainian citizens out of their homes . No thank you

10% of UK population with guns passing laws is not a democracy

At 3/24/14 12:20 AM, DjGubkafish wrote: Ukrainian protesters are very racists . They want to push Russian speaking families who are Ukrainian citizens out of their homes .

Hmm...I'm with Korriken on this one.

At 3/24/14 01:50 AM, HomicidialFrog wrote: Can someone please explain to me how it's possible there are idiots commenting about that tweet GENUINELY believing that outcome isn't bullshit?

Russia's propaganda machine is second only to that of the United States.

At 3/24/14 05:03 PM, lapis wrote:

The old Latin saying goes: if you want peace, prepare for war ("si vis pacem, para bellum"). The only thing that kept the Cold War from escalating into WW3 was the deterrence of war.

I wouldn't go that far, but I see your point. What the US and the G7 (now that Russia is kicked out of the G8) need to do is promise to back up the Ukrainian military with aid and arms, and press the UN to condemn the invasion and make sure nobody outside of Russia recognizes the annexation of Crimea.

If we do this, does this mean that Russia will exit out of Crimea with its tail between its legs? No. The UN is not nearly powerful enough to stop Russia, and I don't know if the EU and NATO are willing to risk a nuclear war. Just as the world did nothing when coalition forced toppled Saddam, there is little outside of declaring war that the West can do to halt Russia's expansion.

What we need to do is get a UN resolution passed (note: you can get a general resolution passed even with a Russian and Chinese veto) and step up our sanctions big time. We need to also make a military treaty with the Ukraine guaranteeing its territorial integrity, and let Russia know that if they put troops on Ukraine's soil (outside of Crimea) we will intervene. Without using our militaries, we may not be able to get Russia out of Crimea, but we can isolate Russia from the world and make Putin's name mud. We can make this as damaging politically to Russia as Iraq was to us. Maybe more.

At 3/24/14 02:28 AM, HomicidialFrog wrote: Yeah, I'm really startled just how much Russians believe they can do no wrong.

Once you think about though, Russia after the Cold War was broken in more ways than one, and with the rise of the EU, they feel like they are being marginalized on the world stage, and the Ukraine Crisis was the perfect chance for them to get their pound of flesh, and to them, they feel like they're doing no wrong with what they do because of this, which is why they're perceived as bullies and thugs.

The EU needs to draw the line in the sand very soon on Russia, considering that Putin is pretty hellbent on getting what he wants, and I'm sure that no one in Europe wants to have the same gun on their heads like they did during the Cold War, but I do fear that's going to be the case if Russia pushes any further than just Crimea. Ranger already mentioned making UN sanctions against Russia, along with military agreements/treaties that recognizes the rest of Ukraine's sovereignty, but Russia does have a huge amount of resources (oil, gas, minerals) and I know that they are going to use that as a crutch against some of the weaker EU countries, and it makes me wonder what they are going to do for a response.

In a way, Russia is like a drunk customer in a bar that starts a fight against someone far weaker right next to him, and he's armed with a loaded gun. The rest of the customers need to arm themselves with whatever means, otherwise there's going to be a massive bar brawl in which the entire place goes FUBAR, and the aftermath will not be pretty.

At 3/24/14 12:27 AM, Korriken wrote: You're full of shit.

At 3/24/14 01:19 AM, Feoric wrote: Hmm...I'm with Korriken on this one.

You guys have to meet more Eastern Europeans than just the ones that like America. Not every Ukrainian wants a separate Ukraine nor does everyone hate Communism. His position, even as a Ukrainian, isn't exactly surprising or uncommon.

I think you're all demonising Russia a little bit. Nobody wants a war here, least of all in Ukraine. The cultural ties with the country, at least with its South-Eastern part are too strong.
Baltic states are even messier, even if Putin _did_ propose some kind of annexation like that of Crimea, doubt that he would've got too many supporters.
Crimea is slightly another matter. As Russian mass media state - there was a call for help from Crimean authorities and as far as I know there's no violence there now and it would be inevitable if the population really resisted being a part of Russia. So, the polls could really be high. Not that high maybe, but elections in Russia are really dirty sometimes. The propaganda machine really works here, that's true.
But it's also true that a lot of people in Ukraine do not support the new government, I have friends from Kyiv and friends that have friends and relatives in Ukraine. According to my friend from Kyiv, it was scary first, now it's just uncomfortable there. Lots of weapons in the city.

There's a rather wide gap between "a large percentage of Ukrainian citizens are unhappy with the current government" and "Ukrainian protesters are neo nazi fascists who want to purge Ukraine of Russian citizens." I'm also not inclined to believe that nearly all Crimean denizens genuinely wanted to join Russia in a completely truthful referendum which was totally not influenced by totally not Russian soldiers.

At 3/24/14 01:50 PM, Korriken wrote:

Some people are unintelligent and incapable of critical thinking skills of any kind and simply fall for whatever they are told to fall for...As such, you can turn a democracy into a flat out dictatorship if you do it slowly, with plenty of propaganda, and even have people cheering you on, until they realize they fell for your trickery and speaking out against their new master will result in them disappearing.

It's not as simple as that. History has shown that people will gladly accept authoritarianism if that means economic security. Under Putin, Russia's economy has strongly grown, and Russia's military prestige is on the rise. If that means more jobs available and a bigger paycheck to the average Russian, what does he care about his voting rights? Had Putin taken power and failed to grow Russia's economy, he'd probably have been ousted or voted out. And unless we punish Russia for their incursion into Crimea and make the average Russian feel it financially, we won't hear any complaints about Putin's authoritarianism.

At 3/26/14 08:53 PM, Elitistinen wrote: And now the Russian want to 'relocate' the local Tatars. Look who's the fascist now?

I read that article and didn't see anywhere where Putin plans to relocate Tartars. Putin is many things, but he's not stupid. He's not going to try to relocate Tartars and incite an insurgency. But hey, if I'm wrong, please quote in the article where Putin plans to relocate the Tartars.

At 3/27/14 06:20 PM, Korriken wrote:

Take them off the land and force them onto the worst piece of land they can find, probably somewhere crops find it hard to grow and there is little water, if any. They'll ask, they'll promise them something great, they'll fall for it and end up with a place where famine is all but certain.

Non Russians will soon be moving with in the Tatars, while the UN sends Putin strongly worded letter of condemnation and non binding resolutions for them to restore Ukraine and Crimea while Putin laughs his ass off at the world's pathetic response.

I'm actually surprised Putin is doing this. This is a great way to incite an insurgency, and especially since the majority of Tartars are Muslim, this could incite massive protests against Russia in the Middle East. That coupled with the fact that Russia is backing al-Assad, and maybe people in the Middle East will start burning Russian flags instead of American ones.

Obama urged Putin to move the buildup of troops from the border today. I imagine the exchange will be like this:

Obama: Pull your troops back.
Putin: OR WHAT?
Obama: Or... I'll talk with some others in the international community and then ask you to pull them back again. Don't make me call for more sanctions.

At 3/28/14 12:05 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Obama urged Putin to move the buildup of troops from the border today. I imagine the exchange will be like this:

"OBAMA BAD. ME NO LIKE OBAMA. OBAMA DO IT, SO IT BE BIG BAD BADDY THING!!!"

Ok, genious. What SHOULD Obama do? You're apparently an expert on Russo-American relations. School us, oh spiteful one.

At 3/28/14 12:05 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Obama urged Putin to move the buildup of troops from the border today. I imagine the exchange will be like this:

Obama: Pull your troops back.
Putin: OR WHAT?
Obama: Or... I'll talk with some others in the international community and then ask you to pull them back again. Don't make me call for more sanctions.

Wildfire4461, what would you prefer he do? If we wanted to get Russia out of Crimea using force we probably could, but it would cost massive amounts of money and lives to do so. The only beneficiary out of a Russo-American war over Crimea would be China.

Obama is not stupid enough to think that a UN resolution and sanctions are going to have Russia crawling out of Crimea with their tails between their legs. But what we can do with minimal injury to us is isolate Russia as far as we can, to hurt their trade routes and make sure nobody trusts Putin again. We can at least make this as politically disastrous for Russia as Iraq was for us.

Darth Vader for president!

At 3/29/14 02:16 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Wildfire4461, what would you prefer he do?

What point is there even asking? Obama is a bad president pee pee doo doo. That's the formula and it's not ever going to change.

At 3/29/14 02:16 PM, Ranger2 wrote: Wildfire4461, what would you prefer he do?

Maybe it's best that we don't get an answer from him, considering that he'll probably use an ad hominem on Obama because his mentality is a mix of a general ripper, and a Youtube war expert who seems to be stuck in the 80's when it comes to warfare and how America should work. Not to mention that Wildfire's reasoning on most everything political are about as flimsy and lousy as trolls like leanlifter and TheKlown, which is not good company to be in.

Obama may be a lot of things, but incompetent war fanatic, he is not.

I think we need to focus on hitting Russia where it hurts: economically, including sanctions, kicking it out of the G8/G20,
Im sorry but I see you are full of emotions IF EU hits Russia with economic sanctions this same sanctions will return to EU as a boomerang EU has a lot of economic ties with Russia and if this ties got cut off just think about the consequence and the EU lets say Russia says FU** YOU you wont get any more gas from as because of your sanctions one Germany imports 35% of Russian gas and thats almost an half% its easy to get emotionally pumped and say FU** YOU RUSSIANS WE DONT NEED YOU AND YOUR STUPID GAS WE CAN LEAVE WITHOUT YOU WE CAN FIND A BETTER ALTERNATIVE(All of this cost money and time).
Not to mention EU still in a Economic crisis and this sanctions would hit them like putting soil in an open wound,

If EU trows Russia out off G8 and G20 Russia will be forced to turn even more to China and will definitely not be in the interests of the West

My final Conclusion is this the only thing the West can do is this Woof, woof, Woof ,woof.The only thing they can do know is use heavy rhetoric whit the help of there mainstream Medias because any other option will work totally against them then actually working for them.