[size=18pt]Will Russia and China Hold Their Fire Until War Is the Only Alternative? — Paul Craig Roberts[/size]


September 25, 2014| Categories: Articles & Columns| Tags: | Print This Article

Will Russia and China Hold Their Fire Until War Is the Only Alternative?

Paul Craig Roberts

Obama’s September 24 speech at the UN is the most absurd thing I have heard in my entire life. It is absolutely amazing that the president of the United States would stand before the entire world and tell what everyone knows are blatant lies while simultaneously demonstrating Washington’s double standards and belief that Washington alone, because the US is exceptional and indispensable, has the right to violate all law.

It is even more amazing that every person present did not get up and walk out of the assembly.

The diplomats of the world actually sat there and listened to blatant lies from the world’s worst terrorist. They even clapped their approval.

The rest of the speech was just utter bullshit: “We stand at a crossroads,” “signposts of progress,” “reduced chance of war between major powers,” “hundreds of millions lifted from poverty,” and while ebola ravages Africa “we’ve learned how to cure disease and harness the power of the wind and the sun.” We are now God. “We” is comprised of the “exceptional people”–Americans. No one else counts. “We” are it.

It is impossible to pick the most absurd statement in Obama’s speech or the most outrageous lie. Is it this one? “Russian aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition.”

Or is it this one? “After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt president fled. Against the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured arms into eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border.”

The entire world knows that Washington overthrew the elected Ukrainian government, that Washington refuses to release its satellite photos of the destruction of the Malaysian airliner, that Ukraine refuses to release its air traffic control instructions to the airliner, that Washington has prevented a real investigation of the airliner’s destruction, that European experts on the scene have testified that both sides of the airliner’s cockpit demonstrate machine gun fire, an indication that the airliner was shot down by the Ukrainian jets that were following it. Indeed, there has been no explanation why Ukrainian jets were close on the heels of an airliner directed by Ukrainian air traffic control.

The entire world knows that if Russia had territorial ambitions, when the Russian military defeated the American trained and supplied Georgian army that attacked South Ossetia, Russia would have kept Georgia and reincorporated it within Russia where it resided for centuries.

Notice that it is not aggression when Washington bombs and invades seven countries in 13 years without a declaration of war. Aggression occurs when Russia accepts the petition of Crimeans who voted 97 percent in favor of reuniting with Russia where Crimea resided for centuries before Khrushchev attached it to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine in 1954 when Ukraine and Russia were part of the same country.

And the entire world knows that, as the separatist leader of the Donetsk Republic said, “If Russian military units were fighting with us, the news would not be the fall of Mariupol but the fall of Kiev and Lviv.”

Which is “the cancer of violent extremism”–ISIS which cut off the heads of four journalists, or Washington which has bombed seven countries in the 21st century murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians and displacing millions?

Who is the worst terrorist–ISIS, a group that is redrawing the artificial boundaries created by British and French colonialists, or Washington with its Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign policy, which declares Washington’s dominant objective to be US hegemony over the world?

ISIS is the creation of Washington. ISIS consists of the jihadists Washington used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent to Syria to overthrow Assad. If ISIS is a “network of death,” a “brand of evil” with which negotiation is impossible as Obama declares, it is a network of death created by the Obama regime itself. If ISIS poses the threat that Obama claims, how can the regime that created the threat be credible in leading the fight against it?

Obama never mentioned in his speech the central problem that the world faces. That problem is Washington’s inability to accept the existence of strong independent countries such as Russia and China. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine commits the United States to maintaining its status as the sole Unipower. This task requires Washington “to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” A “hostile power” is any country that has sufficient power or influence to be able to limit Washington’s exercise of power.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine explicitly targets Russia: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere.” A “rival” is defined as any country capable of defending its interests or those of allies against Washington’s hegemony.

In his speech, Obama told Russia and China that they can be part of Washington’s world order on the condition that they accept Washington’s hegemony and do not interfere in any way with Washington’s control. When Obama tells Russia that the US will cooperate with Russia “if Russia changes course,” Obama means that Moscow must accept the primacy of Washington’s interest over Russia’s own interest.

Clearly, this is an inflexible and unrealistic position. If Washington keeps to it, war with Russia and China will ensue.

Obama told China that Washington intended to continue to be a Pacific power in China’s sphere of influence, “promoting peace, stability, and the free flow of commerce among nations” by building new US air and naval bases from the Philippines to Vietnam so that Washington can control the flow of resources in the South China Sea and cut off China at will.

As far as I can tell, neither the Russian nor Chinese governments understand the seriousness of the threat that Washington represents. Washington’s claim to world hegemony seems too farfetched to Russia and China to be real. But it is very real.

By refusing to take the threat seriously, Russia and China have not responded in ways that would bring an end to the threat without the necessity of war.

For example, the Russian government could most likely destroy NATO by responding to sanctions imposed by Washington and the EU by informing European governments that Russia does not sell natural gas to members of NATO. Instead of using this power, Russia has foolishly allowed the EU to accumulate record amounts of stored natural gas to see homes and industry through the coming winter.

Has Russia sold out its national interests for money?

Much of Washington’s power and financial hegemony rests on the role of the US dollar as world reserve currency. Russia and China have been slow, even negligent from the standpoint of defending their sovereignty, to take advantage of opportunities to undermine this pillar of Washington’s power. For example, the BRICS’ talk of abandoning the dollar payments system has been more talk than action. Russia doesn’t even require Washington’s European puppet states to pay for Russian natural gas in rubles.

One might think that a country such as Russia experiencing such extreme hostility and demonization from the West would at least use the gas sales to support its own currency instead of Washington’s dollar. If the Russian government is going to continue to support the economies of European countries hostile to Russia and to prevent the European peoples from freezing during the coming winter, shouldn’t Russia in exchange for this extraordinary subsidy to its enemies at least arrange to support its own currency by demanding payment in rubles? Unfortunately for Russia, Russia is infected with Western trained neoliberal economists who represent Western, not Russian, interests.

When the West sees such extraordinary weakness on the part of the Russian government, Obama knows he can go to the UN and tell the most blatant lies about Russia with no cost whatsoever to the US or Europe. Russian inaction subsidizes Russia’s demonization.

China has been no more successful than Russia in using its opportunities to destabilize Washington. For example, it is a known fact, as Dave Kranzler and I have repeatedly demonstrated, that the Federal Reserve uses its bullion bank agents to knock down the gold price in order to protect the dollar’s value from the Federal Reserve’s policies. The method used is for the bullion banks to drive down the gold price with enormous amounts of naked shorts during periods of low or nonexistent volume.

China or Russia or both could take advantage of this tactic by purchasing every naked short sold plus all covered shorts, if any, and demanding delivery instead of settling the contracts in cash. Neither New York Comex nor the London market could make delivery, and the system would implode. The consequence of the failure to deliver possibly could be catastrophic for the Western financial system, but in the least it would demonstrate the corrupt nature of Western financial institutions.

Or China could deal a more lethal blow. Choosing a time of heightened concern or disruptions in US financial markets, China could dump its trillion dollar plus holdings of US treasuries, or indeed all its holdings of US financial instruments, on the market. The Federal Reserve and the US Treasury could try to stabilize the prices of US financial instruments by creating money with which to purchase the bonds and other instruments. This money creation would increase concern about the dollar’s value, and at that point China could dump the trillion dollars plus it receives from its bond sales on the exchange market. The Federal Reserve cannot print foreign currencies with which to buy up the dollars. The dollar’s exchange value would collapse and with it the dollar’s use as world reserve currency. The US would become just another broke country unable to pay for its imports.

Possibly, Washington could get Japan and the European Central Bank to print enough yen and euros to buy up the dumped dollars. However, the likelihood is that this would bring down the yen and euro along with the dollar.

Flight would occur into the Chinese and Russian currencies, and financial hegemony would depart the West.

By their restraint, Russia and China enable Washington’s attack upon them. Last week Washington put thousands of its NGO operatives into the Moscow streets protesting “Putin’s war against Ukraine.” Foolishly, Russia has permitted foreign interests to buy up its newspapers, and these interests continually denounce Putin and the Russian government to their Russian readers.

Did Russia sell its soul and communication system for dollars? Did a few oligarchs sell out Russia for Swiss and London bank deposits?

Both Russia and China have Muslim populations among whom the CIA operates encouraging disassociation, rebellion, and violence. Washington intends to break up the Russian Federation into smaller, weaker countries that could not stand in the way of Washington’s hegemony. Russian and Chinese fear of discord among their own Muslim populations have caused both governments to make the extremely serious strategic mistake of aligning with Washington against ISIS and with Washington’s policy of protecting Washington’s status quo in the Muslim world.

If Russia and China understood the deadly threat that Washington presents, both governments would operate according to the time honored principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Russia and China would arm ISIS with surface to air missiles to bring down the American planes and with military intelligence in order to achieve an American defeat. With defeat would come the overthrow of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and all of the American puppet rulers in the area. Washington would lose control over oil, and the petro-dollar would be history. It is extraordinary that instead Russia and China are working to protect Washington’s control over the Middle East and the petro-dollar.

China is subject to a variety of attacks. The Rockefeller Foundation creates American agents in Chinese universities, or so I am informed by Chinese academics. American companies that locate in China create Chinese boards on which they place the relatives of local and regional party officials. This shifts loyalty from the central government to the American money. Moreover, China has many economists educated in the US who are imbued with the neoliberal economics that represents Washington’s interests.

Both Russia and China have significant percentages of their populations who wish to be western. The failure of communism in both countries and the success of American cold war propaganda have created loyalties to America in place of their own governments. In Russia they go by the designation “Atlanticist Integrationists.” They are Russians who wish to be integrated into the West. I know less about the Chinese counterpart, but among youth Western materialism and lack of sexual restraint is appealing.

The inability of the Russian and Chinese governments to come to terms with the threat posed to their existence as sovereign countries by the neoconservative insistence on American world hegemony makes nuclear war more likely. If Russia and China catch on too late in the game, their only alternative will be war or submission to Washington’s hegemony. As there is no possibility of the US and NATO invading and occupying Russia and China, the war would be nuclear.

To avoid this war, which, as so many experts have shown, would terminate life on earth, the Russian and Chinese governments must soon become far more realistic in their assessment of the evil that resides in what Washington has turned into the world’s worst terrorist state–the US.

It is possible that Russia, China, and the rest of the world will be saved by American economic collapse. The US economy is a house of cards. Real median family incomes are in long-term decline. Universities produce graduates with degrees and heavy debts but no jobs. The bond market is rigged by the Federal Reserve which necessitates rigging the bullion markets in order to protect the dollar. The stock market is rigged by the outpouring of money from the Federal Reserve, by the Plunge Protection Team, and by corporations repurchasing their own stock. The dollar is supported by tradition, habit, and currency swaps.

The American House of Cards continues to stand only as a result of the tolerance of the world for vast corruption and disinformation and because greed is satisfied by the money made from a rigged system.

Russia and/or China could pull down this House of Cards whenever either country or both had leadership capable of it.

@the article writer: you wrote with so much hatred for America. The type of hatred that fits perfectly into the terrorist driving force. You honestly need deliverance!

I couldn't complete reading it though

I couldn't complete reading it though

Clap for yourself...... Obama, see another shekau in making here oooooo... Help help help.. Someoneeee call 911

Its amazing that the writer finds it easy to vilify the American way of life and political system(absolutely his right by the way) and makes out that the Chinese and Russian way of life and political systems are the best things that have ever happened.However if he was a Russian citizen or even Chinese he could never put that write up and expect to be a free man in either of those countries .
The hypocrisy in this write up drips like a leaking tap.
I've noticed that pattern with the self avowed haters of the west and praise singers of everything Russian or Chinese ask them to leave the west and take up in china or Russia (independent of any western support institution) and see how long they last and they will sermonize that that is not the issue.
Take any easterners and leave them in the west and they will most likely find it difficult but ultimately survive why because the west has social support systems and guarantees for the basic right of every individual.From time to time things go wrong and mistakes are made but the fact that there is an enduring commitment to better things ,in terms of the fundamental rights of everyone in the society means the west is better .
How many people can write apparently inciting comments like that in most if not all non-western countries and go free?

A“hostile power” is any country that has sufficient power or influence to be able to limit Washington’s exercise of power''

This summarise it all !!

Lol!
For those uninformed people that say this article by Paul Craig Roberts is riddled with hate and that authors of such speech would meet a terrible fate should they pen such diatribe against the Chinese and Russian governments, are apparently not current in world affairs or aware of the myriad of 5th column elements that abound in these countries under the guise of NGOs and pro-democracy movements - and the torrent of incendiary articles that they keep churning out.

The US government is a threat to world peace - even a poll conducted last year says that much - and thanks to true patriots such as Paul Craig Roberts, we will keep learning and speaking the truth

Those who hate america should wait until russia or china takes over then they will know what chaos is really like. D little we see here is sufficient for a discerning eye...things wer old man d sidon for ground see, small pikin no go fit see am even if he climb iroko tree...hahaha

There is this illusion that China and Russia are in an alliance. This is not true at all in fact they have different interest. China's interest is economic while Russia's interest is security.

China needs western markets and they are playing the long game. Russia wants to diversify away from the western markets so that its economy can be protected anytime it engages in an aggressive defense policy (which can be legitimate depending on who you ask.)

Thou the hong kong and Ukriane issue is now bringing China and Russia together, it is still difficult for both of them to come up with one strategy to counter the west. thou the both have what each other needs, (Russia energy and defense tech and China' capital ) their interests haven't really been largely opposite.

Missy89:
There is this illusion that China and Russia are in an alliance. This is not true at all in fact they have different interest. China's interest is economic while Russia's interest is security.

China needs western markets and they are playing the long game. Russia wants to diversify away from the western markets so that its economy can be protected anytime it engages in an aggressive defense policy (which can be legitimate depending on who you ask.)

Thou the hong kong and Ukriane issue is now bringing China and Russia together, it is still difficult for both of them to come up with one strategy to counter the west. thou the both have what each other needs, (Russia energy and defense tech and China' capital ) their interests haven't really been largely opposite.

Wrong. They are in alliance... The $400 billion gas deal of the century being one of the key indicators. Without even othering to go into details, just take it that they alre definitely in alliance

Missy89, not in alliance you say?

China, Russia to Sign 30 Agreements During Annual Meet

NairaMinted:


Wrong. They are in alliance... The $400 billion gas deal of the century being one of the key indicators. Without even othering to go into details, just take it that they alre definitely in alliance

There is a difference between economic bilateral agreements and military/security alliance. Yes they are getting things done together, that doesn't mean an attack on Russia will trigger a military response from China.

Most countries even Russia and the united states have economic and security deals doesn't mean they are in any alliance.

The gas deal was more of a win for China who took advantage of Russia's political isolation to get the deal signed. Its is just a mere political victory for Putin and now he would have to cough out a lot of money to start building the infrastructure. On the long term thou, it is worth it because they are diversifying to Asia

Their interests are colliding in central Asia (A place Russia as always controlled for centuries). China needs energy and there is lots of it in Central Asia and china has been projecting soft power there by investing in the economies of those countries. Russia on the other hand, have military assets there and they have fueling frozen conflicts in other to have leverage with the central governments by playing mediator.

There are also concerns about Chinese border encroachment in the far east (Siberia Region) that has few population and a lot of resources(some of those areas used to be historically Chinese)
They are both in a cat and mouse friendship and Chinese economic power is scary to the Russians that is why they are trying so hard to form the Eurasian union so that they can control the old post soviet states and keep the Chinese out!

They have succeeded in making sure America have little influence there after kicking them out few months ago by demanding that they close the Tajikistan military base that was given to Bush when he invaded Afghanistan. it was where most of the troops were transported to Afghanistan.

Point of the story.
Russia is not only worried about the west. they are worried about the east as well and their economy is not strong enough to project power like it would love to (they still have friends thou). that's why they are aggressive lately (for good reason).


Don't be under any illusion that China will die for Russia. Russia can defend itself within its geographical space so they don't even need China to help them with the west. The problem is they cant afford to have both of them squeezing them at the same time. The plan as always been to divide the west which is working out fine by the way and have strong ties with China economically. The Hong Kong protest is playing well into Putin's hand at the moment because the Chinese might see it as an american plot.

If those kinds of protest persist, then maybe the Chinese will work with the Russians like the Putin would have loved but i doubt it thou, because unlike the Russians, the Chinese have enough leverage against the West.

I enjoyed reading your insightful thoughts into the confrontation between East and West and what the strategic interests of China and Russia really are but I am afraid that you are mistaken if you think both Russia and China do not see America has a threat and that they could very well join forces in countering that threat.. You may be right in your analysis but I believe you are wrong. All indicators point to a stronger alliance between China and Russia, not just economically but militarily. Both countries for instance have held increasingly bigger and more frequent military drills in recent times.

Russia is surrounded by ABMs and NATO and very much infiltrated by 5th columnists posing as NGOs and pro-democracy institutions (Khodorkovsky for instance is now calling for regime change in Russia). Below is a picture of him last month in "Washington DC before "Freedom House" a fake NGO funded by the US State Department which claims to promote democracy around the world yet is chaired by Bush-era warmongers and corporate directors..."
China on the other hand is having to deal with America's "Asia Pivot" and expansion of military bases around her borders. It too has to deal with 5th columns firmly entrenched in place. By the way, I think you were being naive or tactful intentionally by saying the Chinese might see the Hong Kong protests as an american plot. Duh! Of course it is. The leaders behind this movement have been receiving Washington's support for quite a while! Thankfully, the Chinese authorities were smart enough to know that any such movement, especially if not truly homegrown will peter out eventually - which it did - at least for now..

Viral: Hong Kong’s “Occupy Central” is US-backed Sedition

Land Destroyer: Entire "Occupy Central" Protest Scripted in Washington

@NairaMinted

What you need to understand is great powers do not think like people. they are more pragmatic. There are few advantages in the Sino-Russian relationship for china which is, economic and security but they are only temporary and still shaky i will elaborate.

China needs a lot of energy and it is readily available in its surroundings. This is the reason why they are trying to assist central Asians economically and have a foothold there. The Russians are working everyday to prevent this because their energy policies is to have a near monopoly in Asia and Europe. But at the same time, they understand the Chinese needs and i think the new $400 Billion gas deal would help ease that tension.

When it comes to security, joint drills might be significant but it doesn't mean there is any alliance. Russia do joint drills with India too . These are military bilateral cooperation that exists between countries just like Weapons development cooperation. Russia have the most sophisticated weapons industry in the region and China needs those technology, Russia needs Chinese capital. so it is mutual.

Not every Unrest is a direct "american plot" and i wasn't naive when i said "they may see it as" an american plot or not. Hong Kongers generally do not like to be under mainland Chinese rule for decades. this has to do with the fact that most of them grew up under western democracy and it is logical for them to protest from time to time.

The thing about revolutions/unrest is that they are hard to predict and dont usually represents the political facts on the ground (Ukraine?) and major powers/political players hijack them for their own purpose. hong kongers may have started by themselves and America can hijack it and use is as a political tool. A good example was the Arab spring in Egypt where they Egyptian military/ muslim brotherhood took advantage of it, with both of them having different agendas (the military wanted Mubarak gone, the MB wanted the military establishment gone, the west/Gulf states wanted the MB in power). or the French revolution (Napoleon took advantage of the power vacuum and became Emperor) or Ukraine Crisis (Russia took advantage of power vacuum and stole Crimea) or Syria (started peacefully, until the jihadist hijacked it and now we have isis, free Syrian army and many other surrogates and the purpose of the revolution is already defeated ). Point is you cant predict what would end any unrest and it doesn't necessary mean that the people who come out on top or doing most of the talking are the real perpetrators.

The protest has even failed already and if it was a real American plot, it wont be that easy to curb. In fact, the US government didn't put out many statements about it after the Chinese warned them to stay away. That should tell you the US only wanted to take advantage of the opportunity that they saw. (in diplomacy, every situation must be exploited if need be.)

Look at the UN resolution on Crimea. China had to abstain and did not support or condemn Russia (probably because of Tibet). that should tell you that they are not in any alliance. China may be anti west but they still need those markets and investments.

Finally i would say, to call two nations allies, there has to be a treaty whereby each of them have treaty obligations. This does not exist between the two. Thou they are VERY close at the moment, they still have separate interest and apart from the central Asia front, their interest collides again on the South China sea. Russia has too many friends (Vietnam,Philippines) there and would not really back any Chinese aggressive move or expansion in the area. thou there have been joint drills in the region, it is merely symbolic at this point.

OFF TOPIC

multi polar world is admirable and good for world but that does not mean that those trying to keep the status quo are evil. Every major power behave the same and great powers like China and Russia would be doing exactly (if not worse) what America is doing should they have the opportunity. The soviet union never wanted a multi polar society when it was at its might (50s-80s). Instead they were in an ideological struggle with the West. So Russia's idea thou admirable is not born out of being morally superior. its just geo politics. If the soviet union could have kept its power they surely would. And the fall of the USSR isnt because Russia has suddenly fell in love with "democracy", it was a political defeat.




pardon my typos!

You addendum on a multipolar world, I agree with entirely BUT on the matter of China/Russia striking a possible alliance with each other to counter the West, seems we will never share similar views.

One question though: If Russia were to be attacked By the West, do you suppose China will seat aside or would it find a way to either overtly or covertly assist Russia knowing fully well that it would surely be next? Bear in mind that China's military isn't as formidable as Russia's..

A fee days ago, the US and Japan signed a security pact/treaty to counter the threat of China in the Pacific/South Asia

NairaMinted:
You addendum on a multipolar world, I agree with entirely BUT on the matter of China/Russia striking a possible alliance with each other to counter the West, seems we will never share similar views.

One question though: If Russia were to be attacked By the West, do you suppose China will seat aside or would it find a way to either overtly or covertly assist Russia knowing fully well that it would surely be next? Bear in mind that China's military isn't as formidable as Russia's..

A fee days ago, the US and Japan signed a security pact/treaty to counter the threat of China in the Pacific/South Asia

if you don't mention me. i wouldn't know you have responded to what i wrote!

If that is to happen. I do believe the Chinese would have like 4 options and they will pick the one that best suit their national interest.

1. join Russia which would mean fighting Japan and Taiwan
2. be neutral, let Russia and the west destroy each other
3. join a US alliance which would mean taking far east Russia (unlikely but will be on the table)
4. fight on their own and settle scores with Taiwan while the US is distracted fighting in the West.

Look at the dynamics of the second world war and you will see that without a common interest, any alliance is a farce and can only be temporary (germany/ussr , allies/ussr , vichy france/germany , Poland/UK etc)

I think the problem the Chinese currently have is geographical/economical. They have to be very pragmatic if they want to a survive. The reality is China can NEVER be a superpower and can only be an Economic power. The country has low purchasing power which means they have to depend on exporting their goods and think about it. Russia,Pakistan, India, Japan, Vietnam and South Korea pretty much surrounds the country. An alliance with Russia in a military conflict against the west will be petty stupid.

maybe in 40 years time, the situation might be different.

Cheers
.

^^^Not impressed with your submission. It's laced with innuendos!

NairaMinted:
You addendum on a multipolar world, I agree with entirely BUT on the matter of China/Russia striking a possible alliance with each other to counter the West, seems we will never share similar views.

One question though: If Russia were to be attacked By the West, do you suppose China will seat aside or would it find a way to either overtly or covertly assist Russia knowing fully well that it would surely be next? Bear in mind that China's military isn't as formidable as Russia's..

A fee days ago, the US and Japan signed a security pact/treaty to counter the threat of China in the Pacific/South Asia

In the unlikely event of a military conflict, China has more to gain by staying neutral and watch both sides slug it out. - This will leave both sides weaker and that can only mean a good thing for China.

China's military may not be as formidable yet - but this is only a matter of time. And china is usually in no hurry. It has the economic strength - which is the most important.

Shock:



In the unlikely event of a military conflict, China has more to gain by staying neutral and watch both sides slug it out. - This will leave both sides weaker and that can only mean a good thing for China.

China's military may not be as formidable yet - but this is only a matter of time. And china is usually in no hurry. It has the economic strength - which is the most important.

Explain the bold, please.

Shock:

In the unlikely event of a military conflict, China has more to gain by staying neutral and watch both sides slug it out. - This will leave both sides weaker and that can only mean a good thing for China.

China's military may not be as formidable yet - but this is only a matter of time. And china is usually in no hurry. It has the economic strength - which is the most important.

I agree with your second paragraph. I think those underestimating how militarily strong China would be in the next few years, and the waiting game China is playing, are somewhat naive and not conversant with Chinese history.

Even if the leaders don't want to be, it is in their interest to be, based on its history. And never underestimate or be dismissive of an intellectual property. Right now, it's militarily strong enough to defend itself against any external aggression - and its projection into being an imperial power is only a matter of time. It has to protect its huge population, and never again will it allow what happened during colonial times repeat itself. Also, they know their history.

Also, no one ever thought America would be this powerful. But it did with the same waiting game after Europe's self-inflicted destruction. Then you have to also go back to Great Britain when it ruled the world. The Southern Europeans were the first to build modern navies, but once Brittania got involved - it towered over everyone else. So, China buying technologies from other countries is inconsequential since it is an intellectual property that can reverse engineer them, and most likely improve the tech with time.

SirShymex:


I agree with your second paragraph. I think those underestimating how militarily strong China would be in the next few years, and the waiting game China is playing, are somewhat naive and not conversant with Chinese history.

Even if the leaders don't want to be, it is in their interest to be, based on its history. And never underestimate or be dismissive of an intellectual property. Right now, it's militarily strong enough to defend itself against any external aggression - and its projection into being an imperial power is only a matter of time. It has to protect its huge population, and never again will it allow what happened during colonial times repeat itself. Also, they know their history.

Also, no one ever thought America would be this powerful. But it did with the same waiting game after Europe's self-inflicted destruction. Then you have to also go back to Great Britain when it ruled the world. The Southern Europeans were the first to build modern navies, but once Brittania got involved - it towered over everyone else. So, China buying technologies from other countries is inconsequential since it is an intellectual property that can reverse engineer them, and most likely improve the tech with time.

The Chinese military will need more than 3 decades to be able to project any meaningful power in Asia. and i disagree about its military being able to defend the country against ANY outside threat (depends on the adversary). They have limited deterrent and would be routed quickly by many great powers in a full scale nuclear exchange .The days of Mao Zedong human wave doctrine is basically over and there are smarter weapons now.
The Air-force and Navy isn't independent and the core of Chinese military is its land forces and they are not that strong to be honest.
so there are legitimate reasons to underestimate the Chinese military capabilities.

You cant be a superpower if you cant project power. China has only been able to project soft power through economic means. but in the diplomatic and military front, that's not the case.
Yes China's economy might be booming but it is still very dependent.

Missy89:

The Chinese military will need more than 3 decades to be able to project any meaningful power in Asia. and i disagree about its military being able to defend the country against ANY outside threat (depends on the adversary). They have limited deterrent and would be routed quickly by many great powers in a full scale nuclear exchange .The days of Mao Zedong human wave doctrine is basically over and there are smarter weapons now.
The Air-force and Navy isn't independent and the core of Chinese military is its land forces and they are not that strong to be honest.
so there are legitimate reasons to underestimate the Chinese military capabilities.

You cant be a superpower if you cant project power. China has only been able to project soft power through economic means. but in the diplomatic and military front, that's not the case.
Yes China's economy might be booming but it is still very dependent.

Laughable. And it seems you have been brainwashed by propaganda. How about let's analyse the outside threats against China, can we?

- Europe: Europe doesn't have any specific interests in the Pacific, and China's sphere of influence. And militarily, Europe can't project any power in that axis, hence Hong Kong was returned back to China peacefully. So, Europe is inconsequential.

- US: America's threat to China might be a serious one. However, China has more than enough to defend itself against America. Even when China was very weak, during the Korean war, we all know what happened when the red army got involved, against one of the greatest military alliance in history.

Now, based on modern reality - America's military threat to China would be via the Navy and Airforce. And the Chinese airspace is well defended. It's air force doctrine is about quantity, and every inch of China is well covered, with one of the most sophisticated air defense systems in the world. Then with the navy, which would come via aircraft carriers - and China has more than enough capability to destroy, and sink every single one of them.

Lest I forget, it also has nuclear deterrent albeit not that many warheads, but enough for 2nd strike option.

- Japan: the naval superiority in which Japan has always had the upper isn't really there anymore. The Chinese are fast catching up with Japan, and are almost on the same. And I believe they should be on the same level, by the end of the decade.

This is how both Navies are today, as of July, 2014:




To understand why China hasn't started projecting power, you have to understand its history. The country isn't ready yet, and I believe it's in its own interest to keep galvanising the people, through economic means and growth, before embarking on an excursion, that might leave its rear end open. However, to say it's going to take four decades is just laughable - and more like the yank propaganda just to make the neo-cons feel good. They know what they're doing, and they understand the dynamics of the game.

And did America project any super-power status before the self-inflicted destruction of Europe, during the two world wars? America's influence never went beyond its shores, prior to that. I can tell on how Great Britain became a super power as well. Heck, you want to go further back to the Roman empire - I can also tell you about that

Also, to what you posited about America not being behind the Hong Kong crisis and the Arab spring. That's just a big lie.

With Arab spring, it's no longer news that it was all orchestrated by America, using social media. Hence all those who always end up as leaders of the protests always have one link or the other to America, with exiles living in either America, UK, or in France. And their targets were: Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Gen. Wesley Clark (retired American four star general predicted everything way before it started).

With Egypt, it was orchestrated to get the Muslim Brotherhood, controlled by Qatar and UAE in-charge. And they succeeded till Morsi became too big. As for both Libya, and Syria - those were never peaceful protests. Everything was orchestrated with jihadists, MSM media, and fake crowds. That's an open secret. I followed everything closely, and I still remember how BBC was posting crowds in India, for Libya.

I won't even get into the Hong Kong issue because it's still on-going. However, the fact that the UK has remained silent about it, despite Hong Kong being a former British colony should tell you all you need to know. The UK is playing smart politics just to keep itself out, by not reawakening the dark colonial past with China. That's one pandora box that should be kept sealed till eternity.

SirShymex:

To understand why China hasn't started projecting power, you have to understand its history. The country isn't ready yet, and I believe it's in its own interest to keep galvanising the people, through economic means and growth, before embarking on an excursion, that might leave its rear end open. However, to say it's going to take four decades is just laughable - and more like the yank propaganda just to make the neo-cons feel good. They know what they're doing, and they understand the dynamics of the game.

And did America project any super-power status before the self-inflicted destruction of Europe, during the two world wars? America's influence never went beyond its shores, prior to that. I can tell on how Great Britain became a super power as well. Heck, you want to go further back to the Roman empire - I can also tell you about that

This has nothing to do with propaganda but reality. China will never be able to project power like America. it will never happen (at least not in the foreseeable future).The Chinese economy might be growing but the growth is dependent on Western countries. Internally, China's population is a burden and a blessing. The country depends solely on exports because the purchasing power of her citizens is too low to support its enormous production unlike western countries. That said,an exporting powerhouse that doesn't have the strongest navy is dependent and might be doomed!

It will take decades to fix the internal and naval problem!.

China might have caught up with Japan on the sea but you should remember that Japan is not allowed to militarize and if it can still be that formidable without its full potential, that should tell us something. and there is a defense pact with the US to consider.

and u really have to be kidding if you think China can deter a nuclear attack from America. apart from the formidable Second Artillery Corps, their nuclear strength is pretty much limited. there have been studies that even suggested that China would loose a nuclear war within 60 minutes with the US (before u say this is propaganda, the study was done by Russian nuclear strategy experts)

You should also not forget that the rise of China wasn't born out of Chinese ingenuity alone. During the Cold war, when there was friction between the USSR and China, Nixon took advantage of this and brought China into the fold. and there was a huge technology transfer to China from America during the bill Clinton years. Do not under estimate the power of the Anglo-American political/business establishment over the rise of China.

There are many steps to deter China in its tracks. the animosity within its region alone can have huge advantages for the west. Yes China will be a big economic super power but it is no Britain, America or Rome and will never be.

SirShymex:
Also, to what you posited about America not being behind the Hong Kong crisis and the Arab spring. That's just a big lie.

With Arab spring, it's no longer news that it was all orchestrated by America, using social media. Hence all those who always end up as leaders of the protests always have one link or the other to America, with exiles living in either America, UK, or in France. And their targets were: Egypt, Libya, and Syria. Gen. Wesley Clark (retired American four star general predicted everything way before it started).

With Egypt, it was orchestrated to get the Muslim Brotherhood, controlled by Qatar and UAE in-charge. And they succeeded till Morsi became too big. As for both Libya, and Syria - those were never peaceful protests. Everything was orchestrated with jihadists, MSM media, and fake crowds. That's an open secret. I followed everything closely, and I still remember how BBC was posting crowds in India, for Libya.

I won't even get into the Hong Kong issue because it's still on-going. However, the fact that the UK has remained silent about it, despite Hong Kong being a former British colony should tell you all you need to know. The UK is playing smart politics just to keep itself out, by not reawakening the dark colonial past with China. That's one pandora box that should be kept sealed till eternity.

I did not say US isn't involved. what i said is US might be taking advantage of a legitimate protest.
Hong kong is a dictatorship and ruled by few families. The protest was legitimate from the get go but it lacked leadership. I suspect that America's role is coordination (this is just my opinion). But if you compare it to other protests (Libya, Ukraine,Georgia), America's role is limited


I dont want to start sounding like an american foreign policy supporter but lets not see everything from the same perspective.

The Arab spring had different reasons within different countries and it wouldn't be fair to generalize. The military establishment in Egypt got what they wanted (Mubarak gone without installing his son) unfortunately it was hijacked by Muslim brotherhood but this was corrected later. (the military and the US had same goal with different agendas)but that doesn't mean America wasn't involved thou they were not the only players involved. that was the point i was trying to make.

Nairaminted made it look as if America was the only player

.

Missy89:

This has nothing to do with propaganda but reality. China will never be able to project power like America. it will never happen (at least not in the foreseeable future).The Chinese economy might be growing but the growth is dependent on Western countries. Internally, China's population is a burden and a blessing. The country depends solely on exports because the purchasing power of her citizens is too low to support its enormous production unlike western countries. That said,an exporting powerhouse that doesn't have the strongest navy is dependent and might be doomed!

It will take decades to fix the internal and naval problem!.

China might have caught up with Japan on the sea but you should remember that Japan is not allowed to militarize and if it can still be that formidable without its full potential, that should tell us something. and there is a defense pact with the US to consider.

and u really have to be kidding if you think China can deter a nuclear attack from America. apart from the formidable Second Artillery Corps, their nuclear strength is pretty much limited. there have been studies that even suggested that China would loose a nuclear war within 60 minutes with the US (before u say this is propaganda, the study was done by Russian nuclear strategy experts)

You should also not forget that the rise of China wasn't born out of Chinese ingenuity alone. During the Cold war, when there was friction between the USSR and China, Nixon took advantage of this and brought China into the fold. and there was a huge technology transfer to China from America during the bill Clinton years. Do not under estimate the power of the Anglo-American political/business establishment over the rise of China.

There are many steps to deter China in its tracks. the animosity within its region alone can have huge advantages for the west. Yes China will be a big economic super power but it is no Britain, America or Rome and will never be.

This has to be the most laughable analysis I've read in a long time. Yes, China might never be a military world police like America, or colonial Great Britain, because throughtout its history, even when it was a regional power, with so much wealth, and could have colonised most countries - it never did. So, don't expect it do that when it arrives on the big stage. However, to say it will never project power like America is just borderline ridiculous. What power has America projected apart having military bases everywhere, with aircraft carriers, and waging wars against defenseless countries? Has America even ever fought a war with any formidable country? I'd say America hasn't even achieved a fifth of what Great Britain as an empire achieved, and without the English influence way before America's super power status - it would have been the shortest and least influential super power ever. Heck, it became the sole super power after the collapse of the Soviet Union just two decades ago, and maybe with the implementation of petrodollar. Don't overestimate America's super power status - argue based on perspective and objectivity.

Right now, China's economic outreach and projection, is slowly but surely catching up with America's (if not on the same level), despite its insistence on non-interference, and without any military projection. Having the strongest is more synonymous with imperial power, than super power status - stop conflating two distinct issues here. And the Chinese Navy have been vastly modernised in the last decade, at an alarming rate, that's absolutely shocking to most military/defence experts - and it's growing.

Japan has been militarising for more than two decades now, apart from nuclear arsenal. And yes, China has more than enough to deter a nuclear attack from America's navy, and B2 bombers, which is what any nuclear confrontation between the two countries would be about. America can't deploy all its nuclear arsenals to the pacific.

How about educate me on the American technology transfer to China, when the same America championed the UN arms embargo China has been under for over two decades now, and almost all its military capabilities are from the soviets, and technology transfer by rogue Israeli and European military executives? Where and how was this technology transferred, and to what sector?

Like America never had animosity in its region during the cold war - and even Cuba is still not on good terms with America. And almost the whole of South America is off America's sphere of influence. How has that changed anything? Care to explain?

Missy89:

I did not say US isn't involved. what i said is US might be taking advantage of a legitimate protest.
Hong kong is a dictatorship and ruled by few families. The protest was legitimate from the get go but it lacked leadership. I suspect that America's role is coordination (this is just my opinion). But if you compare it to other protests (Libya, Ukraine,Georgia), America's role is limited

I dont want to start sounding like an american foreign policy supporter but lets not see everything from the same perspective.

The Arab spring had different reasons within different countries and it wouldn't be fair to generalize. The military establishment in Egypt got what they wanted (Mubarak gone without installing his son) unfortunately it was hijacked by Muslim brotherhood but this was corrected later. (the military and the US had same goal with different agendas)but that doesn't mean America wasn't involved thou they were not the only players involved. that was the point i was trying to make.

Nairaminted made it look as if America was the only player

America's role is Libya in Libya and Ukraine, yet the same country was at the forefront of saying, "Gaddafi is killing his own people in Libya" when the protest started as a violent and well orchestrated one, with Jihadists attacking military posts and police stations in Benghazi, no? And in Ukraine, Victoria Nuland said, "Fvck the EU" and talked about the $5 billion America has spent on NGOs in that country, with all kinds of American politicians traveling to Maidan to give them cookies, no?

You're just telling porkies, and spewing the same tripe synonymous with Fox news. I can't be ar.sed with the rest...just pure lies and propaganda everywhere.

SirShymex:


This has to be the most laughable analysis I've read in a long time. Yes, China might never be a military world police like America, or colonial Great Britain, because throughtout its history, even when it was a regional power, with so much wealth, and could have colonised most countries - it never did. So, don't expect it do that when it arrives on the big stage. However, to say it will never project power like America is just borderline ridiculous. What power has America projected apart having military bases everywhere, with aircraft carriers, and waging wars against defenseless countries? Has America even ever fought a war with any formidable country? I'd say America hasn't even achieved a fifth of what Great Britain as an empire achieved, and without the English influence way before America's super power status - it would have been the shortest and least influential super power ever. Heck, it became the sole super power after the collapse of the Soviet Union just two decades ago, and maybe with the implementation of petrodollar. Don't overestimate America's super power status - argue based on perspective and objectivity.

Right now, China's economic outreach and projection, is slowly but surely catching up with America's (if not on the same level), despite its insistence on non-interference, and without any military projection. Having the strongest is more synonymous with imperial power, than super power status - stop conflating two distinct issues here. And the Chinese Navy have been vastly modernised in the last decade, at an alarming rate, that's absolutely shocking to most military/defence experts - and it's growing.

Japan has been militarising for more than two decades now, apart from nuclear arsenal. And yes, China has more than enough to deter a nuclear attack from America's navy, and B2 bombers, which is what any nuclear confrontation between the two countries would be about. America can't deploy all its nuclear arsenals to the pacific.

How about educate me on the American technology transfer to China, when the same America championed the UN arms embargo China has been under for over two decades now, and almost all its military capabilities are from the soviets, and technology transfer by rogue Israeli and European military executives? Where and how was this technology transferred, and to what sector?

Like America never had animosity in its region during the cold war - and even Cuba is still not on good terms with America. And almost the whole of South America is off America's sphere of influence. How has that changed anything? Care to explain?

I can see that you evaded some valuable points i made and just like nairaminted, you seems to be more concerned about the damage American foreign policy is doing or has done. I am not looking at it from the perspective at all. I am not discussing policy failure rather i was more concerned about the possibility to carry out such policies, i would leave political ideologist to debate the success and failures or the effects of american policies.

Now,
Geography plays a very important role in power projection and geopolitics. there might be huge animosity to America within its hemisphere but American influence there is undisputed. That cannot be ignored. There is no military or economic power in south and north America to counterbalance or pose a threat to American influence. This was evident during the cold war. But u cant compare this to China. there are formidable regional powers that can undermine China's growing ambitions and we are already seeing this play out of the South China sea and even China's so called ally Russia isn't giving Beijing its full support on its south China sea policies.
There is border dispute with India too along with other countries and everyone in the region is arming themselves right now there are up to 7 powers (with different ambitions) in that area alone that can take on each other fair and square.

America's technology transfer had its risks but played a significant role in creating some sort of economic "beachhead" for American companies in China and it was another way to further isolate the soviets. let me share some papers with you from the Bureau of Export Administration and Office of Strategic Industries and Economic Security about the issue and some Princeton papers to get an idea of what i am saying

https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1985/8510/851004.PDF

http://fas.org/nuke/guide/china/doctrine/dmrr_chinatech.htm

http://fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/98-485.pdf


I do not doubt the Chinese economical influence, but that's only economic. This is a soft power projection and an economy as large as China would be able to do that.

SirShymex:


America's role is Libya in Libya and Ukraine, yet the same country was at the forefront of saying, "Gaddafi is killing his own people in Libya" when the protest started as a violent and well orchestrated one, with Jihadists attacking military posts and police stations in Benghazi, no? And in Ukraine, Victoria Nuland said, "Fvck the EU" and talked about the $5 billion America has spent on NGOs in that country, with all kinds of American politicians traveling to Maidan to give them cookies, no?

You're just telling porkies, and spewing the same tripe synonymous with Fox news. I can't be ar.sed with the rest...just pure lies and propaganda everywhere.

I agree with that there was overwhelming American role in Libya and Ukraine. i have never disputed that. seems you are misunderstanding what i have been saying here. What i said is (repeating this for the 3rd time):

Americans role in Libya and Ukraine (obvious) cannot be compared with its role in Egypt where America wasn't the only player in the Regime change. The military establishment wanted power so did the muslim brotherhood. that was why the unrest continued till the military had its way .that was the point i was making.