Provide the source at your convenience. Until then, all evidence suggests that Russia would have been reduced to slag.I have read they already have dozens in 1951s. and this the most they could fly with Tu-4A bombers.
Provide the source at your convenience. Until then, all evidence suggests that Russia would have been reduced to slag.I have read they already have dozens in 1951s. and this the most they could fly with Tu-4A bombers.
It was Russian PDF that i read. i cannot save every link.Provide the source at your convenience. Until then, all evidence suggests that Russia would have been reduced to slag.
Your whole premise is incorrect by putting similarity of US/Iran proxy approaches. Iran will never develop its potential with its current government system and proxies (they bring negative things to its society) and with demographic trends that will happen in favor of Afghan, Baluch and others it would become very difficult for it to sustain itself as by that time Gulf Arabs would have united majority of the world behind them and with unparallel technology/wealth/Soft power that only Arabs will call the shots.Switch "Iran" to US here and "Israel" to Russia and the same relation holds true. Does that now mean US is helpless to reply directly to Russia? No, it just means US/Iran benefits the most from using up willing proxies first to weaken the enemy.
in a 1v1, Taiwan would've fallen like Hainan in the 1960's or 70's. This was proven by how Taiwan lost naval battles in the 1960's and has never won against the PLAN:Fighting a land invasion is simple even for less developed countries. Iran fought when it was invaded by Iraq in 1980. But fighting against Israel is much more complicated because of the distance. It's much more comparable to the Taiwan issue. China fought for some of the small islands, but could never touch Taiwan itself. That's how poor or middle income countries fight against rich countries.
In terms of realpolitik, competence and strength matter more than moral righteousness; Iran getting its own leaders and scientists killed by a foreign enemy does not convey confidence. China is correct to hold back its "Phul Sapport".China in 1930 and 1950 was still a lot more powerful relative to the US than Iran today. China had more than 500 million people in 1950 and superpower support from the Soviet Union. The US didn't use nukes against China because they were worried about soviet retaliation. Nobody is going to attack Israel in response to a nuclear attack against Iran
Fighting a land invasion is simple even for less developed countries. Iran fought when it was invaded by Iraq in 1980. But fighting against Israel is much more complicated because of the distance. It's much more comparable to the Taiwan issue. China fought for some of the small islands, but could never touch Taiwan itself. That's how poor or middle income countries fight against rich countries.
I think the problem with China's generous deal with Iran is that not much has materialised and China is hesitating to invest in Iran. It's an understandable logic, western markets are too valuable to lose just to assert your sovereignty and trade with Iran. But the disappointment that engagement with China didn't lead to much economic development is exactly why the new president was elected to negotiate with the west. China won't implement the deal unless America approves, apparently
The Pentagon praised China for its transparency before a of an intercontinental ballistic missile into the Pacific Ocean, a sign that military communications between the superpowers is improving.
“We did receive some advanced notification of this ICBM test and we believe that that was a good thing,” Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh said on Wednesday. “It’s a step in the right direction and it does lead to preventing any misperception or miscalculation.”
She added that the US has pressed China for more regular notifications of ballistic missile and space launches.
China’s move “represents a common sense, confidence-building measure,” Singh said. “So we want to see these types of notifications continue.”
The topic dujour is of course about the Russian invasion of Ukraine; its present relationship of "no limits" friendship with China; the ongoing material support of the Democratic Republic of Korea (DPRK) to the Russian war. What I find incredible and unappealing when it comes to these talks, is that as of late, as an avid follower or consumer of contemporary geopolitics, military, and geoeconomics their discussion would leave one more stupid and out right retarded.