Thank you, indeed, for detailed analysis without emoticons and other derision. That's a good quality post.
This is where you are wrong. Russia is still a far more dangerous/capanle military threat to not only we in Europe but also the U.S.
I agree. And it is a good thing. Somebody must keep the US in check. I do not think Russia takes the EU seriously (other than as an economic entity) for the same reason China does not: EU is not really a sovereign entity.
China today is just a regional military power, and doesnt involves itself around the world far from its shores militarily
That's China's geopolitical choice. It is so by policy enshrined in historical documents. China won't get involved in the rest of the world militarily unless/until its vital interests are threatened.
Russia who has not always been a more aggressive/expansionist power but still involves itself militarily abroad and just like the west has militarily bases overseas simethng China doesnt have.
West (US-led), at the moment, is not to be trusted and China's only major enemy.
The number of Russia's overseas bases is minuscule when compared to the US/NATO.
Besides, there is no reason why China would object to, say, Russia's having bases in Syria. That's a good thing and on this and many other geopolitical issues, China and Russia are on the exact same page.
This can ne seen in Russias naval military base in Syria, Russia due to its interests has been the leading arm supplier arms supplier to the syrian regimes for decades and Assads main backer/ally, China by contrast had little to no influence in Syria(it has never had one). So in this case China has no stake whatsoever in Syrian conflict. Even Iran has more stake in this conflict/region than China. China as i said is merely following Russia's lead in the hope of currying favor with moscow and forming a more closer syrategic relationship with Russia and bolster its position against the U.S in Asia/SCS. SO no matter Russia's stance in UNSC about Syria China would have followed Russia's lead.
China's Syria policy is in line with its decades old policy of non-interventionism and political solution of global/regional conflicts. It is not a new thing. China, just as Russia, sees the West (US-UK and their pawns) as the main culprit of the terrorism and radicalism in Syria.
In terms of global policy conceptualization, China and Russia have a great number of commonalities, which is the basis of the ongoing and ever evolving/instituonalizing China-Russia synergy.
As for Europe, well how can you say China doesnt consider Europe a seperate entity? If we were not, then how come we have been transfering sensitive military tech to/license building/cooperating with China for decades now (most times even with U.S /Japanese opposition and warnings?).lol Same with many European countries joining AIIB.etc its simply because we dont and have never ever seen you as a threat.
China does not see Europe as a threat, either. In fact China desires for a more Eurasianist Europe that casts away the Atlanticist/Washington's yoke. Can you do that?
The AIIB case is a fine demonstration of Europe's brushing off Washington and minding their own interests. Just like South Korea did. China is in pursuit of such independent partners. We chose Korea over Japan any day.
Unlike the US, China seeks equal partners, not minions, spokes or pawns.
To think a weak/backward/non independent Europe will be going against the U.S and helping China in sensitive areas, what an irony. Lol We do what is in our interests, moreover we are still by far Chinas largest trading partner, if you think your leaders will forsake that for an unreliable Russia then you are wrong, especially since they know we dony see them as a threat, Russia is.
You participate in a lot of US-led policy moves while majority of your constituency opposes. Case in hand is Syria. You sided with Washington and its allies like Saudi Arabia to bring democracy to Syria. And in the end, you are inundated with refugees and refugee-looking terrorists.
Tell me, how is this being independent?
So tell me ONE simple reason why they will go against Europe? Especially when Europe is the most advanced block in the world just shy of the U.S , hence we have much to offer China.
Why would we go against Europe? It is not Europe that wave the Pivot stick before our eyes. Europe is an economic partner while Russia is a strategic partner. This is so, given that Russia is a sovereign-independent state while Europe is heavily abused and victimized by the US.
China has a certain foreign policy conceptualization as embodied in the five principles of peaceful coexistence. Any state policy that falls in line with it, China will stand by. If not, China will remain neutral.
Additionally, if you can figure out why China often supports Russia stance or at least is more inclined towards moscow in its disputes with other eastern european countries like during Crimea aggression, meanwhile Russia has never EVER voicef it support to China in SCS or against Vietnam/india etc, in fact moscow often does the opposite by arming both your opponents to maintain a power balance/avoid one power from dominating the region.
In the case of Ukraine, China maintained a neutral stance. It did not join the ES-led sanctions, yes, but, it also did not join Russia-led counter sanctions. China is not an ideological power in foreign policy, unlike
Saudi America, hence, it takes pragmatic stance while also taking into account its capabilities and priorities realistically. We are still a developing nation.
China tends to look at the issues historically, not as events isolated from dependent/independent variables. This happens when you are educated into Marxian criticism and dialectical materialism.
In the case of Ukraine, we do not see it as Russian aggression, per se, but, rather, as Russia's legitimate response to US-led NATO aggression. We put the blame on the US and NATO.
Just as Russia does business with Vietnam, China continues to do business with Ukraine. China and Russia understand each other and, behind the scene, all is well spoken and thought over. All is planned. China sees no harm if Vietnam acquired some sub-par systems and Russia earned much-needed money. People got to live.
Russia is an old smart bear who has been playing such great games with the West globally for over a century, so they have much more reach and experience than you do. They know you need them more than vice versa, so they can afford to.
Believe us, we know one thing or two, as well. And just as there is an underlying dynamic among the West no matter how much differences, similar dynamics are present between China and Russia, world's most significant alternative order-makers at the moment.
Moreover, the article is wrong, The U.S is not in decline, other countries are merely rising. The U.S is still by far the worlds leading military power, more than the next 10 countries combined.
Probably that's a fact that we remind ourselves every working day, believe me. Also, there is relative power as well as absolute power, please keep in mind. When MAD capability offers relative power, absolute power becomes obsolete.
In fact Major european powers like France and Britain even have more global military reach/bases/presence by far than China (and to a lesser extent Russia) forget about the U.S. The article is simply hype/dramatic as the media always does.
My purpose to publish the article above was to point out how
Saudi America has been acting as the No1 instigator of terrorism in Syria.
Do you know that France asked UN to include Al Nusra to the list of terrorist organization only after it found out that the the Paris journal attackers were affiliated with them? This is despite the fact that Al Nusra had been executing, torturing, raping civilians in Syria for years. But, at that time, they received assistance from the US-led West.
If China-Russia partnership can break this vicious cycle of immorality and criminal immunity, that's a major contribution to global peace right there.
@Chinese-Dragon ,
@vostok ,
@Martian2
The reasons for that lies elsewhere, has nothing to do with military capabilities.
