Anti-Chinese riots in Vietnam

[Organized States]

In my opinion, the oil rig should be the least of the region's worries, especially with the PLA building an airfield and expanding military facilities on the Johnson South Reef.

[Brutland and Norden]

True. It's not actually the USA that is surrounding China with hostile neighbors, it's actually China who is surrounding itself with hostile neighbors. Look at all the territorial disputes China has with most of her neighbors, and how China acts aggressively towards them.

Well given the territorial baiting they and other nations in the region tend to engage in due to petty historical rivalries it is unfortunate.

Full disclosure: I come from a country China has a dispute with.

It depends on which country. With Japan and Vietnam, China has had a complex relationship with both countries, most of the time adversarial. Ditto with Korea. So there is some historical basis for an antagonistic with them. But with Malaysia? the Philippines? Indonesia? There is nothing stirring the previously calm pot except the new adventurism from the PRC which it is engaging during the past few years. Even Taiwan is smart enough to know not to destabilize the waters. When China starts to act aggressively, it can expect a reaction from its neighbors.

With or without historical antagonism, China's initial moves is the root cause of the present turbulence in the waters. It doesn't even want to accept an international tribunal to rule on the dispute - because either it wants to rely more on its newfound might, or it knows its claims have no basis.

China and some of its neighbors are still stuck in 19th century thinking, in brinkmanship, and in whipping up raw nationalism. (My country, for better or worse, fails in all three.) China, with its size and influence, needs to act more like a modern country. Like modern France and Germany, China and its neighbors need to put historical enmities aside. Like modern Spain and Portugal, territorial disputes does not need to be always resolved by force or immediately. Or else, Asia will go down like Europe did in the 20th century.

[Gigaverse]

Well given the territorial baiting they and other nations in the region tend to engage in due to petty historical rivalries it is unfortunate.

Full disclosure: I come from a country China has a dispute with.

It depends on which country. With Japan and Vietnam, China has had a complex relationship with both countries, most of the time adversarial. Ditto with Korea. So there is some historical basis for an antagonistic with them. But with Malaysia? the Philippines? Indonesia? There is nothing stirring the previously calm pot except the new adventurism from the PRC which it is engaging during the past few years. Even Taiwan is smart enough to know not to destabilize the waters. When China starts to act aggressively, it can expect a reaction from its neighbors.

With or without historical antagonism, China's initial moves is the root cause of the present turbulence in the waters. It doesn't even want to accept an international tribunal to rule on the dispute - because either it wants to rely more on its newfound might, or it knows its claims have no basis.

China and some of its neighbors are still stuck in 19th century thinking, in brinkmanship, and in whipping up raw nationalism. (My country, for better or worse, fails in all three.) China, with its size and influence, needs to act more like a modern country. Like modern France and Germany, China and its neighbors need to put historical enmities aside. Like modern Spain and Portugal, territorial disputes does not need to be always resolved by force or immediately. Or else, Asia will go down like Europe did in the 20th century.

Unfortunately, a lot of idiots in this entire part of the continent just don't get that.

[United Marxist Nations]

China invaded Vietnam shortly after the Vietnam war ended, it's not like they were ever buddies.

[AiliailiA]

I think it's up to powers on China's own scale to deal with China's illegal offshore drilling. I think small but closely targetted trade sanctions would be appropriate, and yes of course the Chinese government will massively over-react but so what? The West needs to stop being so easily bluffed by China.

i don't think the prc is bluffing.

The PRC is always bluffing, and they'll keep doing it until called to account. Sanctions from the West would hurt China more than the West (sanctions do always hurt the nation applying them) but China counts on the West to be lazy and self indulgent.

The sort of sanctions I'm thinking of are specific to offshore drilling. Certain Western (and particularly US) commercial interests would be harmed, but overall it would hurt China much more to be deprived of equipment, expertise, and foreign workers for offshore drilling.

As I said, small but closely targetted sanctions. We can do it.

[Brutland and Norden]

Unfortunately, a lot of idiots in this entire part of the continent just don't get that.

That is why I applaud my government's decision to refer the dispute to an arbitration tribunal. Either they know at least there my country has a chance at winning, or they prefer diplomacy to resolve disputes. Which is the modern way of doing it, IMHO.

[Ethel mermania]

i don't think the prc is bluffing.

The PRC is always bluffing, and they'll keep doing it until called to account. Sanctions from the West would hurt China more than the West (sanctions do always hurt the nation applying them) but China counts on the West to be lazy and self indulgent.

The sort of sanctions I'm thinking of are specific to offshore drilling. Certain Western (and particularly US) commercial interests would be harmed, but overall it would hurt China much more to be deprived of equipment, expertise, and foreign workers for offshore drilling.

As I said, small but closely targetted sanctions. We can do it.

i hope your right. i tend to think if it comes down to it there will be a threat of force by the prc, and that threat will be backed up.

[Ethel mermania]

Unfortunately, a lot of idiots in this entire part of the continent just don't get that.

That is why I applaud my government's decision to refer the dispute to an arbitration tribunal. Either they know at least there my country has a chance at winning, or they prefer diplomacy to resolve disputes. Which is the modern way of doing it, IMHO.

please tell that to premier putan.

[Tel]

Despite the fact that these riots have nothing to do with American meddling- Nilfgaard, why are you against the US having a sphere of influence? You seem to support the idea well enough with any other state.

There are lots of people in the world.

An amusing segment of them seem to think that the U.S is an inherently evil abomination of satanic rape-cultists that seek to destroy everyone's economy in the name of more deep-fried candy-bars, toting 50. caliber machine guns draped in the intestines of infants and people they don't agree with, like dem damn lib'rels, yessir.

Or something.

[Confederate Nordenkaltian Nations]

Vietnam has always been a puppet state to Russia or now China, they have good reason to be upset.

[Ostroeuropa]

The calculation the west will make here:


1. Can we afford to piss off china given the recent climate with russia. (Probably not.)

2. Will we benefit from a Chinese-run vietnam. (Yes.)

3. Will we benefit from a busy china. (Yes, this assumes a second vietnam war.)

4. Will China benefit from running Vietnam enough to shift the balance of power. (Maybe. Probably not.)

And so:

5. The west will covertly support China, or may publically decide that the ethnic attacks are a legitimate reason for China to intervene. They will do this to:

A. Bring vietnam further into the Capitalist sphere of economies.
B. Make china happier with us, and less likely to back Russian shenanigans
C. Potentially weaken China if it fucks up the war, but that isn't necessary. If it happens, we'd be happy. if it doesn't, we don't care.

[The New Lowlands]

The calculation the west will make here:


1. Can we afford to piss off china given the recent climate with russia. (Probably not.)

2. Will we benefit from a Chinese-run vietnam. (Yes.)

3. Will we benefit from a busy china. (Yes, this assumes a second vietnam war.)

4. Will China benefit from running Vietnam enough to shift the balance of power. (Maybe. Probably not.)

And so:

5. The west will covertly support China, or may publically decide that the ethnic attacks are a legitimate reason for China to intervene. They will do this to:

A. Bring vietnam further into the Capitalist sphere of economies.
B. Make china happier with us, and less likely to back Russian shenanigans
C. Potentially weaken China if it fucks up the war, but that isn't necessary. If it happens, we'd be happy. if it doesn't, we don't care.

what

[The Scientific States]

Riots and Violence against Chinese citizens is spiraling in Vietnam. Reports of factories being burned and ethnic Chinese businessmen fleeing is the unfortunate byproduct of this situation.
20 people have been killed thus far in the past day.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/m ... in-vietnam

It is sad to see such hostility against the People's Republic of China. I feel like the West is purposefully trying to stoke tension in the region by pitting China's neighbors against Beijing in a thinly veiled containment policy.
"Pivot to Asia" as they like to call it.
Obama's Sino-phobic Asia tour last month as a good example of this policy.

Vietnam must immediately work to contain this nationalist outburst, or bad things may come.

That's very sad, and I hope the situation gets better. However, blaming this on the west is silly.

[The Scientific States]

Vietnam has always been a puppet state to Russia or now China, they have good reason to be upset.

No...

Read your history books, because that is entirely untrue.

[Ostroeuropa]

The calculation the west will make here:


1. Can we afford to piss off china given the recent climate with russia. (Probably not.)

2. Will we benefit from a Chinese-run vietnam. (Yes.)

3. Will we benefit from a busy china. (Yes, this assumes a second vietnam war.)

4. Will China benefit from running Vietnam enough to shift the balance of power. (Maybe. Probably not.)

And so:

5. The west will covertly support China, or may publically decide that the ethnic attacks are a legitimate reason for China to intervene. They will do this to:

A. Bring vietnam further into the Capitalist sphere of economies.
B. Make china happier with us, and less likely to back Russian shenanigans
C. Potentially weaken China if it fucks up the war, but that isn't necessary. If it happens, we'd be happy. if it doesn't, we don't care.

what

Essentially, the West lacks the strength and strategic security at this time to help Vietnam.
We do however, have much to gain from encouraging China to sort the mess out, and writing them a blank cheque in that regard.

While it sucks for Vietnam, the world is at stake. The needs of the many and such.

[The New Lowlands]

what

Essentially, the West lacks the strength and strategic security at this time to help Vietnam.
We do however, have much to gain from encouraging China to sort the mess out, and writing them a blank cheque in that regard.

While it sucks for Vietnam, the world is at stake. The needs of the many and such.

If there's any lack of strength, it's purely imaginary. How the heck do you figure that it's in the West's interest to be seen as encouraging China?

[Ostroeuropa]

Essentially, the West lacks the strength and strategic security at this time to help Vietnam.
We do however, have much to gain from encouraging China to sort the mess out, and writing them a blank cheque in that regard.

While it sucks for Vietnam, the world is at stake. The needs of the many and such.

If there's any lack of strength, it's purely imaginary. How the heck do you figure that it's in the West's interest to be seen as encouraging China?

It isn't purely imaginary. We're in a bit of a pickle economically right now, and we can't even deal with Russia invading Ukraine.
Do you honestly think we'll give a shit about China invading Vietnam?

We need to keep China our ally. If China begins to shift out of it's neutrality into a pact with the Russians, we're fucked. It'll be a new cold war, and we may lose.

[The New Lowlands]

If there's any lack of strength, it's purely imaginary. How the heck do you figure that it's in the West's interest to be seen as encouraging China?

It isn't purely imaginary. We're in a bit of a pickle economically right now, and we can't even deal with Russia invading Ukraine.
Do you honestly think we'll give a shit about China invading Vietnam?

We need to keep China our ally. If China begins to shift out of it's neutrality into a pact with the Russians, we're fucked. It'll be a new cold war, and we may lose.

The situation with Russia is different from that with China. If we go into a head-on conflict with Russia, there's the potential a direct and immediate response from Moscow in terms of cutting off the gas to Europe. China's economy, while larger, doesn't have that same power.

China is our ally just as much as Russia was before they invaded Ukraine: not.

[Ostroeuropa]

It isn't purely imaginary. We're in a bit of a pickle economically right now, and we can't even deal with Russia invading Ukraine.
Do you honestly think we'll give a shit about China invading Vietnam?

We need to keep China our ally. If China begins to shift out of it's neutrality into a pact with the Russians, we're fucked. It'll be a new cold war, and we may lose.

The situation with Russia is different from that with China. If we go into a head-on conflict with Russia, there's the potential a direct and immediate response from Moscow in terms of cutting off the gas to Europe. China's economy, while larger, doesn't have that same power.

China is our ally just as much as Russia was before they invaded Ukraine: not.

China and Russia, if they act together, can crash the US dollar. (China refused to do this when Russia asked them to in 2008)

Russia can take on Europe, and China+Russia can take on the US.

We have to be careful not to anger both at once.

[Hurdegaryp]

It is sad to see such hostility against the People's Republic of China. I feel like the West is purposefully trying to stoke tension in the region by pitting China's neighbors against Beijing in a thinly veiled containment policy.
"Pivot to Asia" as they like to call it.
Obama's Sino-phobic Asia tour last month as a good example of this policy.

lol. do you think vietnam and china would be holding hands in harmony if it wasn't for the west? do you even know why things like this are happening?

Western sabotage is the answer to everything in Nilfy's reality. The fact that the People's Republic of China and Vietnam fought short wars with each other in the past probably has nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.

[The New Lowlands]

The situation with Russia is different from that with China. If we go into a head-on conflict with Russia, there's the potential a direct and immediate response from Moscow in terms of cutting off the gas to Europe. China's economy, while larger, doesn't have that same power.

China is our ally just as much as Russia was before they invaded Ukraine: not.

China and Russia, if they act together, can crash the US dollar. (China refused to do this when Russia asked them to in 2008)

Russia can take on Europe, and China+Russia can take on the US.

We have to be careful not to anger both at once.

Are we talking military terms? Russia's military compared to that of the EU just isn't that impressive.

I made a table to illustrate this in the Ukraine thread:

The Saudi AF has F-15s. The Saudi Army has Abrams and Amx-30s.

The EU's joint forces are considerable even without US forces stationed in Europe. They will act in their own self-interest regardless of popular opinion when push comes to shove.

Numbers: Wikipedia

Army	AFVs	Artillery/MLRS	Combat Aircraft
European Union	52,721	6,833 (+ 18,302 Mortars)	2,037
Russia	8,667 (+34,000 reserve - legacy?)	5,739	672 (+ 513 strike aircraft)
Saudi Arabia	7,118 (not incl. armoured cars)	1,028 (+228 Mortars)	380 (Not including F-5s)

This is not including US forces stationed in the European Union. What the table also doesn't show is US strength in the Pacific, and that overall EU equipment and training is either equivalent or better to their Eastern counterparts.

[Ostroeuropa]

China and Russia, if they act together, can crash the US dollar. (China refused to do this when Russia asked them to in 2008)

Russia can take on Europe, and China+Russia can take on the US.

We have to be careful not to anger both at once.

Are we talking military terms? Russia's military compared to that of the EU just isn't that impressive.

I made a table to illustrate this in the Ukraine thread:

The Saudi AF has F-15s. The Saudi Army has Abrams and Amx-30s.

The EU's joint forces are considerable even without US forces stationed in Europe. They will act in their own self-interest regardless of popular opinion when push comes to shove.

Numbers: Wikipedia

Army	AFVs	Artillery/MLRS	Combat Aircraft
European Union	52,721	6,833 (+ 18,302 Mortars)	2,037
Russia	8,667 (+34,000 reserve - legacy?)	5,739	672 (+ 513 strike aircraft)
Saudi Arabia	7,118 (not incl. armoured cars)	1,028 (+228 Mortars)	380 (Not including F-5s)

This is not including US forces stationed in the European Union. What the table also doesn't show is US strength in the Pacific, and that overall EU equipment and training is either equivalent or better to their Eastern counterparts.

Ofcourse not in military terms, that's ridiculous.
The wars between the major powers these days are fought by economics, or through proxies.
The US+EU armies are entirely irrelevant to the issue, as is the Russian and Chinese army. What is important is the economic factors.

So long as all 4 army blocs are good enough to seriously fuck up the economies of the other countries and set them back decades, war will never come.

[The New Lowlands]

Are we talking military terms? Russia's military compared to that of the EU just isn't that impressive.

I made a table to illustrate this in the Ukraine thread:




This is not including US forces stationed in the European Union. What the table also doesn't show is US strength in the Pacific, and that overall EU equipment and training is either equivalent or better to their Eastern counterparts.

Ofcourse not in military terms, that's ridiculous.
The wars between the major powers these days are fought by economics, or through proxies.
The US+EU armies are entirely irrelevant to the issue, as is the Russian and Chinese army. What is important is the economic factors.

So long as all 4 army blocs are good enough to seriously fuck up the economies of the other countries and set them back decades, war will never come.

You know, they first started saying stuff like what I italicized prior to the First World War, IIRC. But I digress; you're not interested in the military factors, and that's fair enough.

In that case, I should point out that the GDP of the U.S. and E.U. combined is approximately $32,264,000,000,000, while the GDP of China and Russia combined is $ 10,242,000,000,000. This is not accounting for other trade partners (e.g. Canada, Turkey) who in a hypothetical trade war would most likely align themselves in the Wests' favour. Our economic might is roughly three times that of our hypothetical adversaries.

[Imperial Nilfgaard]

In my opinion, the oil rig should be the least of the region's worries, especially with the PLA building an airfield and expanding military facilities on the Johnson South Reef.

China has a right to build military facilities on its own territory.

[Ostroeuropa]

Ofcourse not in military terms, that's ridiculous.
The wars between the major powers these days are fought by economics, or through proxies.
The US+EU armies are entirely irrelevant to the issue, as is the Russian and Chinese army. What is important is the economic factors.

So long as all 4 army blocs are good enough to seriously fuck up the economies of the other countries and set them back decades, war will never come.

You know, they first started saying stuff like what I italicized prior to the First World War, IIRC. But I digress; you're not interested in the military factors, and that's fair enough.

In that case, I should point out that the GDP of the U.S. and E.U. combined is approximately $32,264,000,000,000, while the GDP of China and Russia combined is $ 10,242,000,000,000. This is not accounting for other trade partners (e.g. Canada, Turkey) who in a hypothetical trade war would most likely align themselves in the Wests' favour. Our economic might is roughly three times that of our hypothetical adversaries.

This entirely ignores that we are reliant on them for our economy to work.
They are not necessarily reliant on us.