NationStates

The Peoples Republic of poland wrote:结束中国的人权问题必须通过中国民众才能实现。你们是否想过中国国内对于政府的态度？你们有否想过争取中国人民的支持？

Rojava Free State wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Don’t worry NK is going to invade the south this year too.

I hope you like Koreans

Told yall. This horrifying year ends in mushroom clouds.

The Peoples Republic of poland wrote:结束中国的人权问题必须通过中国民众才能实现。你们是否想过中国国内对于政府的态度？你们有否想过争取中国人民的支持？

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:The US official has warned India not to buy Russian fighters.
Emm ....interesting Now I think they should buy American fighters.
US highlights CAATSA risk in Indian fighter procurement

Genivaria wrote:

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:The US official has warned India not to buy Russian fighters.
Emm ....interesting Now I think they should buy American fighters.
US highlights CAATSA risk in Indian fighter procurement

I honestly don't care where they buy their fighters from, I care whether or not they can shoot down Chengdu's.

Novus America wrote:

Genivaria wrote:I honestly don't care where they buy their fighters from, I care whether or not they can shoot down Chengdu's.

Fair but buying Sukhois to fight Suhkois is kind of interesting.
Russia is on the side of the PRC.

Russia has to to pick a side. Are they with the PRC or India?
With me or against me is a bad logic a lot of the time, but someone arming your enemies is not your friend.

Genivaria wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Fair but buying Sukhois to fight Suhkois is kind of interesting.
Russia is on the side of the PRC.

Russia has to to pick a side. Are they with the PRC or India?
With me or against me is a bad logic a lot of the time, but someone arming your enemies is not your friend.

Maybe I'm ignorant about Russia's strategic goals in the east but I figured they viewed China as their main rival on the continent.
One should always seek to weaken their main rival.

Novus America wrote:

Genivaria wrote:Maybe I'm ignorant about Russia's strategic goals in the east but I figured they viewed China as their main rival on the continent.
One should always seek to weaken their main rival.

Russia is sometimes weird. They view the PRC as a potential threat but they hate “the West” more. Owning the West sometimes is more important to them then their own safety.
Hence why they sell weapons to the PRC that might be used against them. They will sell the PRC the hope the PRC hangs them with.

The KGB types like Putin are often more interested in revenge over coherent long term strategy.

Russia does think they can play all sides against each other, appease and support the PRC yet not suffer any consequences for doing so even though the PRC is a threat to them too.

But appeasement is feeding other people to the alligator in hopes it eats you last.
Still long term you get eaten.

The KGB types like Putin are often more interested in revenge over coherent long term strategy.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Russia is sometimes weird. They view the PRC as a potential threat but they hate “the West” more. Owning the West sometimes is more important to them then their own safety.
Hence why they sell weapons to the PRC that might be used against them. They will sell the PRC the hope the PRC hangs them with.

The KGB types like Putin are often more interested in revenge over coherent long term strategy.

Russia does think they can play all sides against each other, appease and support the PRC yet not suffer any consequences for doing so even though the PRC is a threat to them too.

But appeasement is feeding other people to the alligator in hopes it eats you last.
Still long term you get eaten.

First , Siberia and Central Asia have never been Russia's core interest areas.There are not many troops deployed on the border between China and Russia, so Russia is not under military pressure from China in the Far East.In terms of interests, militarily, Russia needs China to balance the maritime pressure of the United States and its allies in the Pacific in the Far East.China also needs to cooperate with Russia on some backward projects to accelerate its military development.
Second，In Europe, Russia's core interest area, NATO accelerated the pace of expansion.Eastern Europe has taken the western side since the collapse of the Soviet Union.Now Ukraine, a former Soviet Union member, is also on the western side.But in Yeltsin's time, Russia's embrace of the West was not accepted. Instead, Russia suffered an economic disaster.And there's growing military pressure on the border.Of course, technically, if the West accepts Russia, the leadership of the United States in the West will be greatly challenged. All this makes Russia have to rethink its own positioning and long-term strategy.
Third, what can China provide to Russia and what can Russia provide to China?Officially, the relationship between China and Russia is "the comprehensive strategic partnership".Russia is no longer capable of becoming a superpower again in the near future.Its weak economy needs the EU and China.China can always provide stable trade and buy Russian energy and other products.But Russia's trade with Germany is threatened by political forces.
So can Russia get this from India?India is actively integrating into the US military strategic alliance in the Indian Ocean and Pacific region.But India is also a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.An organization that includes China, Russia, Pakistan and the former Soviet Union's participating countries in Central Asia.This is enough to make Russia doubt whether India has a long-term and sustained political strategy.And it's hard to judge India's strategic goals.India is not strong enough. India is not strong enough to ensure Russia's economic security.
So although China's strength is strong enough to threaten Russia.But both China and Russia have long-term and clear strategic goals. In the foreseeable future, there is no fundamental conflict of interest between the two. And the official of both sides has always maintained friendly and efficient communication.At a time when the west is exerting greater strategic pressure on the two countries, there is no reason make them divided.In particular, China usually has a stable long-term strategy lasting for half a century to a century.

The KGB types like Putin are often more interested in revenge over coherent long term strategy.

Russia today has a longer and clearer strategy than the West.Can you tell us what the current long-term strategy of the United States is and how long it will last?

Novus America wrote:

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:First , Siberia and Central Asia have never been Russia's core interest areas.There are not many troops deployed on the border between China and Russia, so Russia is not under military pressure from China in the Far East.In terms of interests, militarily, Russia needs China to balance the maritime pressure of the United States and its allies in the Pacific in the Far East.China also needs to cooperate with Russia on some backward projects to accelerate its military development.
Second，In Europe, Russia's core interest area, NATO accelerated the pace of expansion.Eastern Europe has taken the western side since the collapse of the Soviet Union.Now Ukraine, a former Soviet Union member, is also on the western side.But in Yeltsin's time, Russia's embrace of the West was not accepted. Instead, Russia suffered an economic disaster.And there's growing military pressure on the border.Of course, technically, if the West accepts Russia, the leadership of the United States in the West will be greatly challenged. All this makes Russia have to rethink its own positioning and long-term strategy.
Third, what can China provide to Russia and what can Russia provide to China?Officially, the relationship between China and Russia is "the comprehensive strategic partnership".Russia is no longer capable of becoming a superpower again in the near future.Its weak economy needs the EU and China.China can always provide stable trade and buy Russian energy and other products.But Russia's trade with Germany is threatened by political forces.
So can Russia get this from India?India is actively integrating into the US military strategic alliance in the Indian Ocean and Pacific region.But India is also a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.An organization that includes China, Russia, Pakistan and the former Soviet Union's participating countries in Central Asia.This is enough to make Russia doubt whether India has a long-term and sustained political strategy.And it's hard to judge India's strategic goals.India is not strong enough. India is not strong enough to ensure Russia's economic security.
So although China's strength is strong enough to threaten Russia.But both China and Russia have long-term and clear strategic goals. In the foreseeable future, there is no fundamental conflict of interest between the two. And the official of both sides has always maintained friendly and efficient communication.At a time when the west is exerting greater strategic pressure on the two countries, there is no reason make them divided.In particular, China usually has a stable long-term strategy lasting for half a century to a century.

Russia today has a longer and clearer strategy than the West.Can you tell us what the current long-term strategy of the United States is and how long it will last?

That is still Russia picking the PRC against India.
Russia very much views Central Asia and Siberia as vital to its interests.

PRC domination of Central Asia means Russia loses influence there.
Plus the risk the PRC wants to reclaim Outer Manchuria.

The West meanwhile has no desire for Russian land.

The last part is just whataboutism, weakness in Western strategy does not make Russian strategy good. Long term Russia is only a a trajectory to become weaker and weaker, lose more influence.

India is a rising power with no real conflicts with Russia EXCEPT that the PRC is hostile to India.

The West meanwhile has no desire for Russian land.

PRC domination of Central Asia means Russia loses influence there.
Plus the risk the PRC wants to reclaim Outer Manchuria.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Novus America wrote:
That is still Russia picking the PRC against India.
Russia very much views Central Asia and Siberia as vital to its interests.

PRC domination of Central Asia means Russia loses influence there.
Plus the risk the PRC wants to reclaim Outer Manchuria.

The West meanwhile has no desire for Russian land.

The last part is just whataboutism, weakness in Western strategy does not make Russian strategy good. Long term Russia is only a a trajectory to become weaker and weaker, lose more influence.

India is a rising power with no real conflicts with Russia EXCEPT that the PRC is hostile to India.

Russia did not help China against India. China is also not interested in against India.That kind of thing exists only in the imagination of the western media.This goal is too obvious to create a confrontation threat between China and India, and hinder China's strategic planning in Central Asia and Southeast Asia.That's why Moody's and China's top management are trying to cool things down.But his statements contradict those of the Indian military, raising questions about whether he can effectively rein in the army.

The West meanwhile has no desire for Russian land.

It has nothing to do with territory. A series of troops and anti missile missiles deployed along the Russian border threaten Russia's strategic strike capability.

PRC domination of Central Asia means Russia loses influence there.
Plus the risk the PRC wants to reclaim Outer Manchuria.

domination ----A very superficial strategy.Using this word shows that you underestimate China's strategic depth.What China is doing will destroy the foundation on which international capitalism depends.This is a long-term goal that could last for centuries.Russia is obviously willing to join the program and actively cooperate in many projects.
Q：What do you think is the root cause of poverty in Central Asia and Africa?China's strategy is based on its understanding of this reason

Novus America wrote:

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:Russia did not help China against India. China is also not interested in against India.That kind of thing exists only in the imagination of the western media.This goal is too obvious to create a confrontation threat between China and India, and hinder China's strategic planning in Central Asia and Southeast Asia.That's why Moody's and China's top management are trying to cool things down.But his statements contradict those of the Indian military, raising questions about whether he can effectively rein in the army.


It has nothing to do with territory. A series of troops and anti missile missiles deployed along the Russian border threaten Russia's strategic strike capability.

domination ----A very superficial strategy.Using this word shows that you underestimate China's strategic depth.What China is doing will destroy the foundation on which international capitalism depends.This is a long-term goal that could last for centuries.Russia is obviously willing to join the program and actively cooperate in many projects.
Q：What do you think is the root cause of poverty in Central Asia and Africa?China's strategy is based on its understanding of this reason

The PRC attacked Indus to “teach India a lesson”.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3952297
The PRC started this, the PRC wants India weak and subservient but India wants to be a power in its region.
And there is this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-In ... er_dispute
The arrogance and imperialism of the PRC ensures conflict.

Because a PRC dominated world helps no one but the PRC, it is not in the interests of others for India to loose. Not even for Russia.
A defeat for India hurts, not helps Russia. This is the issue.

And no the capitalist PRC obviously does not seek to destroy international capitalism. Rather it seeks to remake and control it, in order to control the world. Central Asia included.
The reasons for poverty in Africa and Central Asia are complex, but PRC domination will not fix that, as the PRC wants servants and slaves, not potential rivals. It wants everyone to bow to it,

And no NATO troops are not a threat to Russia, as NATO has no territorial designs against Russia.
Territory is important. NATO is not going to launch a preemptive attack on Russia. And Russia wants to keep its power in Central Asia, Outer Manchuria and abs Siberia, which the PRC may threaten. Russia’s anger with the West is more based on a desire for revenge and ideology. Not simple geography.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Novus America wrote:

The PRC attacked Indus to “teach India a lesson”.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3952297
The PRC started this, the PRC wants India weak and subservient but India wants to be a power in its region.
And there is this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-In ... er_dispute
The arrogance and imperialism of the PRC ensures conflict.

Because a PRC dominated world helps no one but the PRC, it is not in the interests of others for India to loose. Not even for Russia.
A defeat for India hurts, not helps Russia. This is the issue.

And no the capitalist PRC obviously does not seek to destroy international capitalism. Rather it seeks to remake and control it, in order to control the world. Central Asia included.
The reasons for poverty in Africa and Central Asia are complex, but PRC domination will not fix that, as the PRC wants servants and slaves, not potential rivals. It wants everyone to bow to it,

And no NATO troops are not a threat to Russia, as NATO has no territorial designs against Russia.
Territory is important. NATO is not going to launch a preemptive attack on Russia. And Russia wants to keep its power in Central Asia, Outer Manchuria and abs Siberia, which the PRC may threaten. Russia’s anger with the West is more based on a desire for revenge and ideology. Not simple geography.

OK, I can draw a conclusion.You lack geopolitical awareness.So you don't think NATO is a threat to Russia.And you have a bias against Russia.

China pulled out of the area after defeating India. If the PRC wants to use stronger measures, they can take New Delhi.

International capitalism is a threat to all industries.China has always adopted a high pressure policy on financial capital, leaving only one gap in Hong Kong.If China rules or controls these regions, it must bear the military, political and governance costs. This is a serious burden on the economy.On the contrary, if China exports infrastructure, transportation, electricity, networks, education and health care, these regions will start to industrialize.Westerners may not understand what this is good for China.The strategic value of this behavior is much greater than that of control.If China does what the West has not done, these regions will become China's staunch allies.If they complete industrialization, they will become a new market for Chinese products.If they adopt Chinese standards and technology, they can destroy the trade rules and monetary hegemony set by the West.China only uses international capital, but it has been directly attacked by them in 1996, 1998, 2008 and 2012.You can't see that.Westerners' inherent strategic shortsightedness leads to little consideration of long-term interests.You can only think of domination .But how can interests be safeguarded in 50 years, a century and hundreds of years thereafter.China doesn't need allies or enemies because everyone is a potential partner.

Novus America wrote:Creating a new market for products? That is capitalism bro!

And domination! You openly contradict yourself here. Openly admitted I was right.

Turning the world into subservient markets for PRC goods is very much a capitalist scheme.
Not a neoliberal one sure, more a mercantilist one but this is nothing new.
The scheme you outlined only supports my point.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Novus America wrote:Creating a new market for products? That is capitalism bro!

And domination! You openly contradict yourself here. Openly admitted I was right.

Interestingly, customers are dominated by stores.How do you think you're right?

Turning the world into subservient markets for PRC goods is very much a capitalist scheme.
Not a neoliberal one sure, more a mercantilist one but this is nothing new.
The scheme you outlined only supports my point.

I seem to have only talked about developing new markets.What theory do you use to understand it?Based on your American theory"Buy my product, or I'll increase the tariff"?

But partnered us the wrong word. Partners are in theory equals. Equals that can challenge or criticize the west is something the west will never accept. That is clear.

Genivaria wrote:

Diopolis wrote:The last time a soviet style "big picture" army went up against a mission style planning western army, the soviets won.

The difference (well one of many), is that the Soviets were defending against essentially a war of genocide and lost tens of millions in the process.
The PLA on the other hand will be doing the invading with a poorly trained, and poorly led military that's rife with corruption, into a mountainous region against a force that is used to fighting in the mountains.

It would be more analogous to the Soviets in the early years charging the Maginot line.

Plzen wrote:Great. The ensuing public hysteria will guarantee that the US can exploit western-aligned minor powers more without said powers raising too much of a fuss.

The sheer weight of anti-Chinese sentiments on this thread is... most interesting.

Plzen wrote:Great. The ensuing public hysteria will guarantee that the US can exploit western-aligned minor powers more without said powers raising too much of a fuss.

The sheer weight of anti-Chinese sentiments on this thread is... most interesting.

Novus America wrote:

Plzen wrote:Great. The ensuing public hysteria will guarantee that the US can exploit western-aligned minor powers more without said powers raising too much of a fuss.

The sheer weight of anti-Chinese sentiments on this thread is... most interesting.

Maybe if that is your problem you should be criticizing Xi for attacking India in the first place...

We are not against Chinese, simply a crazed dictatorship that is engaging in aggressive actions against the West. This is simple self defense.

Plzen wrote:Great. The ensuing public hysteria will guarantee that the US can exploit western-aligned minor powers more without said powers raising too much of a fuss.

The sheer weight of anti-Chinese sentiments on this thread is... most interesting.

Novus America wrote:Maybe if that is your problem you should be criticizing Xi for attacking India in the first place... :lol:

We are not against Chinese, simply a crazed dictatorship that is engaging in aggressive actions against the West. This is simple self defense.

Plzen wrote:

Novus America wrote:Maybe if that is your problem you should be criticizing Xi for attacking India in the first place...

We are not against Chinese, simply a crazed dictatorship that is engaging in aggressive actions against the West. This is simple self defense.

Submitting to hegemony to avoid being submitted to a hegemony is an interesting thing to call "self-defence".

The great deception of industrial and post-industrial society is this strange idea that the core and periphery of some societal hegemony share the same interests and must be equally concerned with defending those interests. If our national leaders try to sell us the Chinese boogeyman in order to convince us to give up more of our institutions and customary privileges to domestic and foreign elites for "defence" and "protection", I will view those claims with the skepticism and hostility which that kind of absurdity absolutely deserves.