Here is a free campaign slogan:"Don't ask me what I can do for you, ask me what I can do about china!!"
Miscellaneous News
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
Here is a free campaign slogan:"Don't ask me what I can do for you, ask me what I can do about china!!"
What this move, putting more troops ready to invade Russia along the border, what this move proves is that war is better than peace.
What the AUKUS deal demonstrates is that war is better than peace.
Indonesia and Malaysia both complained about the AUKSU deal, which will militarize their respective borders.
Since when has Indonesia and Malaysia ever complained about development and rising incomes along and inside their borders?
We can tell which countries are associated with which moving forward.
Take the Morrison man argument or reported beliefs to a logical conclusion, then obviously war is better than peace.
(an old report)
That is what Chairman Mao taught.
The ideas of winning hearts and minds.
solarz
Brigadier
We need to raise awareness at a grassroots level that we don't want Canada to be part of the American aggression against China.
Conveniently, you left out the famous and the Expiration of ??
Basically, despite a common ideology (read: Communism) and a common enemy (read: USA/West), the Soviet Union and China hated each other.... You think that didn't play a role in the Nixon Swing? US exploiting a fissure within the Communist bloc?
International relations is fluid and dynamic two-way street, pressure does not flow in one direction. For example, China indirectly pressures Russia economically in Central Asia via dominating the market share of trade, goods, and services, a region historically Russia dominated. Russia indirectly pressures China diplomatically via North Korea as a Eurasian Spoiler in the 2+2 format between US/SK and NK/China. Russia indirectly pressures China via third-party weapons sales (e.g. Su-30MKI, Brahmos, or Su-57 "Checkmate" fighters to Vietnam/India).
This is true, Russia benefits from partnering with China. Under current EU/US sanctions, beggars can't be choosers.
US has nothing to offer Russia? This is what I can think of off the top of my head:
- Cessation of NATO buildup on Russian border and Black Sea intrusions
- Recognition of Russian annexation of Crimea
- Recognition of Russian sphere of influence in Ukraine
- Removal of Western economic sanctions against Russia
- Foreign direct investment, esp. Russia oil and gas industry
- Access to Western financial institutions and consumer market for goods/services
- Re-entry into G8 nations
History shows that "Anti-Americanism" was an insufficient glue for Soviet Union and China. In fact, common ideology (read: Communist) and common enemy (read: US) was an insufficient glue for Soviet Union and China. There is a sense of Egoism between the two Communist leader/giants, and whether Russia would allow itself to become a subordinate 'junior partner' in an alliance with China remains to be seen.
The international relation theory of "Balance of Power" suggests that weaker states tend to band together for survival in the face of an overwhelmingly dominant hyperpower. That's the reason for the Nixon-Swing to China.
If US offered to normalize relations and lift economic sanctions on Russia in order for Russia to offset overwhelming Chinese dominance, then it's a reasonable prospect under the 'Balance of Power' framework.
USA and UK have common ideology (read: Democracy), common heritage (read: Anglo-Saxon tradition), common language (read: English), common race/ethnicity (read: Caucasian/European lineage), and common enemy (read: Communism/Soviet Union/Nazi Germany), which are all factors that greatly enhance the prospects of peaceful transition of hegemony between powers. Not least because UK was shattered by WW1/WW2 and decolonization, while US emerged relatively unscatched, so UK couldn't do much even if it really wanted to.
Whereas China and Soviet Union did have a common ideology (read: Communism), completely different heritage (read: European vs. Chinese Civilization), completely different language (read: Russian vs. Chinese), completely different race/ethnicity (read: Caucasian vs. Mongolid), and common enemy (read: US/Capitalism) and they still ended up hating each other despite all the commonalities of ideology and enemy.
Now see China and Russia have even less in common than during the Soviet era, so the prospects of 'Anti-Americanism' as the solitary glue for a formal treaty alliance is pretty farfetched to anyone who knows the cause of Sino-Soviet Split and termination of USSR-China alliance treaty.
Translation: Anti-Americanism or Anti-US Hegemonism is the glue that binds Russia-China "alliances".
We saw from the Sino-Soviet Split that even common ideology (Read: Communism) and common enemy (Read: USA) was an insufficient glue to overcome egoism between the two Communist Giants.
The notion that Russia will acquiesce as a subordinate 'junior partner' to China is Big Assumption, given Russia's historic legacy as a Superpower nation. Putin openly reminesces about the glory days of Soviet Superpower-dom. I doubt it would accept playing second-fiddle as Eurasian Spoiler with Outsized nuclear arsenal and raw-materials appendage of China. Russia will do whatever it can to restore it's Superpower status, and I doubt playing second-class 'junior partner' tributary state to China will recognize Superpower Status.
Remember in international relations, there is no permanent friends, only permanent interests. The US/UK/AUS gutting the French is an good example of this.
Last edited:
That's just false. It's a gaslighting Anglo lie. The US, UK, and Australia is purely a race-based alliance, what is that other than a permanent blood kinship?
Who asked it to?
A trial test for eventually banning Chinese phones in the West?
As we all know, Lithuania is following US orders on taking action against China
Another election so soon?
delete