What's new

China & Russia need to take action against America.

Agree with you, but the best option for China is to wait and take on a weaker US, and I agree that the US is looking to divert its attention of its public by starting a war/ or clouds of war probably against Iran. I don't think a war against Pakistan is conceivable.

My thinking is until and unless there is direct threat to China or Russia, they will not enter into a confrontation with the US.

Dude read this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/02/opinion/can-russia-help-us-withdraw-from-afghanistan.html

AMERICA’S relations with Pakistan have been steadily deteriorating ever since a Navy Seals team killed Osama bin Laden near Islamabad in May. Matters became still worse in September, when Adm. Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, accused Pakistan’s intelligence agency of supporting an attack on the American Embassy in Kabul. And on Saturday, the relationship hit a new low when a NATO airstrike mistakenly killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers, and Pakistan retaliated by shutting down supply routes to Afghanistan that crossed its territory.

Instead of relying heavily on Pakistan as a supply corridor, the United States should expand its cooperation with Russia, which has been playing an increasingly important role in military transit to and from Afghanistan. This would serve as both a hedge and a warning to the generals who control Pakistan.

True, this proposal might seem ironic, as Afghanistan was the site of a nearly decade-long struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union toward the end of the cold war. (During that time, America cooperated with Pakistan to support Afghan mujahedeen fighting the Soviets.) But working with Russia today is in fact the key to preventing the United States from becoming a hostage to Pakistan’s dysfunctional politics and its ambitions in Central Asia.

Expanding transit routes into and out of Afghanistan is a critical American national interest, and it would improve security for NATO forces while signaling that Washington was not beholden to Islamabad. It might also cause Pakistan to reassess its policy of providing sanctuary and support to terrorist networks operating against American forces.

In the last two years, the Northern Distribution Network through Russia and Central Asia has evolved from a peripheral component of American wartime logistics to the principal path for non-combat supplies into Afghanistan. These routes — which traverse Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Latvia, Azerbaijan and Georgia — carry approximately 52 percent of all coalition cargo into Afghanistan. And under a 2009 air transit deal with Russia, 225,000 Americans have traveled there through Russian airspace on more than 1,500 military flights.

These northern routes are far less dangerous than the supply routes that go through Pakistan, where militants often attack American and NATO convoys. As the Obama administration’s surge in Afghanistan draws to a close and we begin to reduce our military presence there, these routes will become even more significant. Indeed, the United States might be able to draw down its forces from Afghanistan safely, rather than subjecting American convoys to attacks while passing through Pakistan.

Negotiations to withdraw American forces from Afghanistan through Russia will not be easy; thus far, Moscow has allowed only the shipment of non-combat supplies. Nevertheless, Russia agreed earlier this year to let certain types of armored vehicles cross its territory into Afghanistan, and Washington should pursue further cooperation.

Facilitating the American drawdown from Afghanistan would allow Russian leaders to make an important contribution to regional security; successful American-Russian cooperation, with help from other countries along the northern routes, could also help maintain regional stability.

Russia remains deeply conflicted about America’s wider role in Central Asia. However, the prospect of an American withdrawal has helped a number of Russian officials appreciate the security benefits of the American presence there. Indeed, during a Nov. 11 meeting outside Moscow, Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia stated clearly that NATO played a “positive” role in Afghanistan and expressed concern about the consequences of a premature withdrawal.

Many Americans forget that Mr. Putin was the first world leader to call President George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks to offer his assistance, and Moscow quickly agreed to permit American bases in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia to support the war effort in Afghanistan. And even before 9/11, during the Clinton administration, Mr. Putin proposed United States-Russian cooperation against the Taliban; Washington turned down the offer for political reasons — a mistake we should not repeat.

Critics may worry that relying on the northern routes to supply our troops in Afghanistan and withdraw them as we reduce our presence there will make the United States overly dependent on Russia. But because of Afghanistan’s location, we have no choice but to depend on others for access to its territory.

The choice is between Pakistan on one hand, and Russia and Central Asian nations on the other. And Russia, unlike Pakistan, has not hosted militants who are killing Americans on the battlefield.

Dov S. Zakheim, an under secretary of defense from 2001 to 2004, is vice chairman of the Center for the National Interest, where Paul J. Saunders is executive director.
 
.
World War 3 - China, Pakistan, Russia, Iran vs U.S./NATO

Indians would want their government to help U.S./NATO because of war against Pakistan but Manmohan SIngh would not want to upset China Russia and Iran, so Indians will take their war online to defence.pk.

I have been highly appreciative of your views up until now , this is nothing more than a flame bait
 
.
I have been highly appreciative of your views up until now , this is nothing more than a flame bait

I think we all realise that sometimes we behave like football supporters on some threads here on the forum. I for one appreciate the indian leaders being mature and treating asmericans with caution
 
.
Dude read this article.


Many Americans forget that Mr. Putin was the first world leader to call President George W. Bush after the 9/11 attacks to offer his assistance, and Moscow quickly agreed to permit American bases in the former Soviet republics of Central Asia to support the war effort in Afghanistan. And even before 9/11, during the Clinton administration, Mr. Putin proposed United States-Russian cooperation against the Taliban; Washington turned down the offer for political reasons — a mistake we should not repeat.

Critics may worry that relying on the northern routes to supply our troops in Afghanistan and withdraw them as we reduce our presence there will make the United States overly dependent on Russia. But because of Afghanistan’s location, we have no choice but to depend on others for access to its territory.

The choice is between Pakistan on one hand, and Russia and Central Asian nations on the other. And Russia, unlike Pakistan, has not hosted militants who are killing Americans on the battlefield.

Dov S. Zakheim, an under secretary of defense from 2001 to 2004, is vice chairman of the Center for the National Interest, where Paul J. Saunders is executive director.

Time changes views. There was a time when americans were supplying taleban. 10 years is a long time. Your article is out of date with all the developments over the last 10 years and in my opinion not relevant to ground realities today and just represents what west want to believe.

Russia will not cooperate whilst americans are up to their shenanigans in eastern europe.
 
.
Oh mate Putin will want to annoy americans just watch when americans go ahead with missile shields

Let them play with the Bear. It will be fun to see the ramifications in Eastern Europe, Middle East and elsewhere when Russia holds major leverage over America.

Actually, Russia is much more likely to confront America than China is. Not because China is less capable, but because Russia pines for the old days when America took it seriously as an equal. China was never America's equal so, if they have to wait a few more years to feel strong enough, it's no big deal.
 
.
Let them play with the Bear. It will be fun to see the ramifications in Eastern Europe, Middle East and elsewhere when Russia holds major leverage over America.

I see greater cooperation between russia and china globally to protect their interests and I see red lines being redrawn. I might change my name to nostradamus lol
 
.
Time changes views. There was a time when americans were supplying taleban. 10 years is a long time. Your article is out of date with all the developments over the last 10 years and in my opinion not relevant to ground realities today and just represents what west want to believe.

Russia will not cooperate whilst americans are up to their shenanigans in eastern europe.

I think you missed this part:-

Russia remains deeply conflicted about America’s wider role in Central Asia. However, the prospect of an American withdrawal has helped a number of Russian officials appreciate the security benefits of the American presence there. Indeed, during a Nov. 11 meeting outside Moscow, Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia stated clearly that NATO played a “positive” role in Afghanistan and expressed concern about the consequences of a premature withdrawal.
 
.
I think you missed this part:-

Russia remains deeply conflicted about America’s wider role in Central Asia. However, the prospect of an American withdrawal has helped a number of Russian officials appreciate the security benefits of the American presence there. Indeed, during a Nov. 11 meeting outside Moscow, Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia stated clearly that NATO played a “positive” role in Afghanistan and expressed concern about the consequences of a premature withdrawal.

At some point the Russians will start wondering how long this 'war on terror' is going to last in Afghanistan. Is the US just maintaining a de facto permanent presence under the guise of a WOT? And does Russia really want a permanent US presence in Afghanistan?
 
.
At some point the Russians will start wondering how long this 'war on terror' is going to last in Afghanistan. Is the US just maintaining a de facto permanent presence under the guise of a WOT? And does Russia really want a permanent US presence in Afghanistan?

Most probably 2014. As American are already withdrawing 40,000 troops by next year and half of Afghanistan is under the control of ANA now. It makes Russian positive that they will withdraw by 2014 and hence they admires Americans for their positive role because Taliban supports Chechnya insurgents. Chinese are more concerned about Uighur insurgents. So, Pakistan should not expect much from them as Chinese and Russians won't sacrifice their interest in Afghanistan.
 
.
I think you missed this part:-

Russia remains deeply conflicted about America’s wider role in Central Asia. However, the prospect of an American withdrawal has helped a number of Russian officials appreciate the security benefits of the American presence there. Indeed, during a Nov. 11 meeting outside Moscow, Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia stated clearly that NATO played a “positive” role in Afghanistan and expressed concern about the consequences of a premature withdrawal.

Nope I didnt. We are all against terrorists. But whats that got to do with American global ambitions. My point is Putin and russia will not allow ulterior motives to come into play. You will note that in the turkey conference Russia showed contempt for american plans for afghanistan
 
.
I reiterate my stand Pakistan is not in the crosshairs of the US for a full blown attack, They are more keen to force Pakistan in dismantling the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani assets that operate out of Pakistan to safeguard US interests in AF. For whatever reasons Pakistan is still holding on to these assets which is not acceptable by the US. In the coming months they will initiate hot pursuit of these groups inside Pakistan whether Pakistan accepts it or not.

US wants PK to dismantle these elements and if they dont then US takes it upon itself to do it. Remains to be seen what will be Pakistan's perception on these insurgencies into its territory as acts of war owing to huge domestic backlash against these actions or not. The bigger picture is the US does not want elements acting against it or AF from within Pakistan's borders
 
.
World War 3 - China, Pakistan, Russia, Iran vs U.S./NATO

Indians would want their government to help U.S./NATO because of war against Pakistan but Manmohan SIngh would not want to upset China Russia and Iran, so Indians will take their war online to defence.pk.
For your information India won't go against Russia{Reason: Relationship} and India won't go against America too{Reason: Buisness}

So Result India will remain Neutral....we are not going to fight others war untill unless it doesn't go against our interest...
 
.
So, Pakistan should not expect much from them as Chinese and Russians won't sacrifice their interest in Afghanistan.

Mate cant you get past pakistan. Im talking about g-l-o-b-a-l. Iraq, afghanistan, libya, missile shield china seas. China and Russia will do whats in their interest not pakistans or americas. It just so happens some of their interests coincide with some pakistani interests

---------- Post added at 12:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:02 PM ----------

I reiterate my stand Pakistan is not in the crosshairs of the US for a full blown attack, They are more keen to force Pakistan in dismantling the Afghan Taliban and Haqqani assets that operate out of Pakistan to safeguard US interests in AF. For whatever reasons Pakistan is still holding on to these assets which is not acceptable by the US. In the coming months they will initiate hot pursuit of these groups inside Pakistan whether Pakistan accepts it or not.

US wants PK to dismantle these elements and if they dont then US takes it upon itself to do it. Remains to be seen what will be Pakistan's perception on these insurgencies into its territory as acts of war owing to huge domestic backlash against these actions or not. The bigger picture is the US does not want elements acting against it or AF from within Pakistan's borders

Well they have been trying for 10 years without success. What makes you think they will succeed now with less troops and a belligerent pakistan and pakistani popilation that is becoming more anti american by the day.

They have never tried what might have worked and that is win heart and minds say like china
 
.
People here are overestimating Russian response to Missile Shield and they are under estimating Russian hate for China and Pakistan...
 
.
Russia might leverage this issue for its benefit not for Pakistan sake. America for its part might even make some kind of truce with Russia. Pakistanis behaving as if Russia is confronting against America for their interests. Nope. As long as most free world support America, the chance of usurping America's power would be negligent. These days wars are diplomatic not literal. And America would win them hands down.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom