Remember in international relations, there is no permanent friends, only permanent interests.
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?
The US, UK, Aus is more like close family rather than friends, per se.
You are correct, as
@AssassinsMace astutely noted a few post ago, US/UK/Aus is a good example of an "alliance within alliance of democracies", one marked by ethnocentric kinship under the guise of shared democratic values. For China, this is opportunity for a "Divide-and-conquer" tactic because you can peel off allies since they are opportunistically jostling for money and influence. (see US/UK/UK screwing France over sub deal). Let the Barbarians fight the Barbarians.
The problem with the West is they have to have alliances within alliances among democracies.
The notion that Russia will acquiesce as a subordinate 'junior partner' to China is Big Assumption
Who asked it to?
I don't know, I thought Egoism was a big cause of Sino-Soviet Split, two big boys who wants to be leaders.
I smell nuclear war in either scenario ... no China nor the US can afford losing in this case ... thats the biggest issues
US is likely going to abandon Taiwan like how US abandoned the Kurds, Afghans, and South Vietnamese. US didn't go to nuclear WW3 over Tibet, Korea, Vietnam, Xinjiang, HK, and certainly not over Taiwan. Imagine if the roles reversed, China interfering in US Civil war between North and South, I'm pretty sure China wouldn't risk nuclear war over something irrelevant to Chinese security interests. Is it worth trading Shanghai for Atlanta, Georgia? Same why US wouldn't risk Los Angeles for Taipei. US Arm-chair pundits talk a tough game, but they are pussy shit once China calls their bluff.
