Complaining about interference is just democrats throwing tantrums over their election loss, while boasting US being an open society. Countries interfere with each other all the time. Don't tell me US didn't interfere with Russian politics.
I think Putin is just being Russian. I don't have the exact quote but I think he said recently that being Russian means you are willing to take a loss when defending yourself, something like that. That's why people say don't poke the bear. That's an image they want to impress, even at weak times. I think Putin did it well as a true geopolitical master, given the resources they have. It's a price they are willing to pay.
Ukraine to Russia is probably similar to NK to China. When US pushed its troops deep into NK, China had no choice but to react, even though China was much weaker and loss was all but certain to be astronomical for a newly founded government.
What happens to Libya, Syria and Ukraine is EU shooting their own feet by blindly following US. Not for those stupid moves around Mediterranean, UK might have stayed in EU. They should thank Putin for stopping things going to the worse.
What happened in Ukraine was extraordinary and Putin did the unthinkable by his opponents. US weak hands were over confident and end up with a loss for Ukraine and Europe. Maybe they just don't care.
What Putin did in Syria was also remarkable. He waited until Europe turned the tide towards immigration before committing military resources, that's strategic patience. To this day I still admire his confidence and wonder how long he would have waited had ISIS didn't launch those stupid terrorist attacks in Europe. Had he interfered too early in Syria, for sure those ideological minded European leaders would impose more sanctions against Russia, which can only degrade the situation. Compared with what Putin has done, those European leaders are still in their kindergarten.
Now back to China. Of course military spending to GDP ratio matters. It's a measurement of your perceived threat and an indicator of your strategy. China has made it's intention clear, that is to modernize its military and have a military that matches its economic status, which is world's second largest economy.
China's economy is well above 10 trillion US$, a 2% spending would make it well over 200 billion. China's economy is close to two thirds of US economy, matching US spending level would make it around 400 billion. In reality it's more around 150 billion.
China also stated its goal is to have a modernized military by 2035. By that time China's economy would be on par with US. I don't think this is a goal that aggressive that requires build up at arms race level.
In the last a couple of days there has been some fanfare in Chinese media about conventional powered EM CAT. It's all but certain that China's next carrier after Shandong will be such a one. What this tells you is that China cares more about doing things right for the longer term, rather than following some short term buildup schedule. This is strategic confidence and patience.
Now, from the stand point of a small European country with few traditional external threat, building 4 055 at the same time might be excessive. But remember that China is situated in one of the most geopolitically complicated region in the world. China has been patient and playing catch-up. Now it's just a time of China being ready to follow through its stated moderate goal, and whatever message it sends, is simply a byproduct. It's true that few country has this kind of capacity, and US may want to play it up to form some kind of anti-China alliance. But it remains to be seen how many countries would blindly follow other than Japan. Don't make the same mistake as the Europeans.
