What's new

The Great Game Changer: Belt and Road Intiative (BRI; OBOR)

Cheap shot. Russia is in no way subordinate to China. The two are equals. A subordinate country would not pull out a Crimea with zero explicit Chinese support.

You have been repeating the same argument for too long anytime China-Russia reinforce their relationship. Better yet, you may ask Russian members here of their perception @vostok , and @senheiser

You have to bring out empirical evidence to prove that China-Russia partnership is one of a major and minor.

Russia is a major power by itself and we are just thankful to US for "facilitating" the China-Russia strategic alignment which is based on a completely different set of values and norms than the one between the US and its unimportant minions.



It does not. Besides, what is the relevance really. Exceeding or being exceeded does not make an alliance less equal if either of the two sides do not nurture hegemonic aspirations against the other.



If Saudi Arabia ever implements democracy, I wonder what the US, with the petrodollar gone, would do?

A note to yourself: China will never implement stuff in other people's terms.



Again, cheap shot. But, the prospects of a right wing warmonger president to assume power in the US is almost given.


Xi, Putin meet in Beijing, 17 agreements signed
November 9, 2014, 1:41 pm


41d517db0f0d32db8f14.jpg

Putin (left) presented Chinese President Xi Jinping (center) with a Russian smartphone– a Yotaphone-2, with Russian, Chinese and APEC symbols uploaded for the occasion [PPIO]

In a boost to bilateral ties between the two allies, Russia and China have signed 17 agreements on Sunday after Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping met in Beijing.

The deals inked today include an agreement on the delivery of Russian natural gas to China via the western route, securing the world’s top energy user a major source of cleaner fuel. The western route refers to gas supplies to China from Russian fields in West Siberia.

The route to supply gas to China via the western route may be implemented faster than the eastern route, through which Moscow agreed to ship the fuel to its Asian neighbor in May, according to Gazprom’s CEO Alexei Miller.

Putin, during Sunday’s meet, also lauded Russia-China ties as key to maintaining stability in the world.

“Cooperation between Russia and China is extremely important for keeping the world in line with the international law, making it [the world] more stable,” Putin said during his meet with Xi.

Russian state oil giant Rosneft and Chinese oil major CNPC also signed an agreement on Sunday to sell 10 per cent of shares in Rosneft’s subsidiary Vankorneft to China National Oil and Gas Exploration and Development.

Ties between the two allies “represent an irreversible trend” Xi said on Sunday.

“No matter how the international landscape shifts, we must insist on giving priority to the development of Sino-Russian ties in our diplomatic endeavors, constantly boost political and strategic mutual trust, and keep expanding and deepening comprehensive cooperation,” said the Chinese President.

Xi and Putin also agreed to step up cooperation in high-speed rail, technology, aerospace and finance sectors.

Sunday was Xi’s tenth meeting with Putin since he assumed the office of Chinese presidency in March 2013.

Russia and China also signed agreements on “implementing joint energy investment projects in Arkhangelsk Region, on the joint funding, construction and operation of a hydro power station in the Far East of Russia and on cooperation in the construction of hydro-accumulating power stations,” said a Kremlin statement.

Sberbank of Russia also signed an agreement with the Export-Import Bank of China regarding credit lines and purchasing loans, while VTB Bank signed a cooperation agreement with China’s telecom giant Huawei Technologies.

In Sunday’s meet, Putin noted that bilateral trade turnover went up by 1.3 per cent in 2013. In the first nine months of this year it has increased by 7 per cent as Russia increases it economic engagement with China while battling Western sanctions over the Ukraine crisis.

Putin and Xi also “discussed their respective countries’ positions on the main issues on the agendas for the upcoming APEC and G20 summits” said a Kremlin statement.

“I would also like to note the importance of cooperation between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation for retaining the world within the international legal framework, for making it more stable and predictable. You and I have done a great deal for this purpose and I am certain we will continue working in this direction,” said Putin.

The two Presidents also announced on Sunday that China and Russia will jointly celebrate the 70th anniversary of the victory of World War II next year.

Putin is in Beijing to attend the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting (AELM) that will be held on Monday and Tuesday and will be attended by world leaders from 21 nations, including US President Barack Obama.

Obama’s Provocations Pushed China, Russia Closer
Special to The BRICS Post
November 9, 2014

The American and Russian presidents have publicly revealed their conflicting visions of future development not only in Europe (where Moscow and Washington continue to lock horns over Ukraine), but in Asia, as well.

In the buildup to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Beijing, US President Barack Obama made it clear that he had no plans to meet his Russian counterpart.

He went on to say that he also likely won’t meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Brisbane, Australia where both leaders will attend the G20 summit in mid-November.

At the same time, Obama reiterated his support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade deal Washington is negotiating with 11 nations in the region, excluding China and Russia.


On the eve of the APEC summit in Beijing, Putin highlighted his opposition to the TPP.

One does not need to be a genius to understand that plans to build Pacific economic zones without the region’s two biggest powers – Russia and China – are doomed.

“It is clear that the economic influence of the United States and the West in general will inevitably decline in the coming years,” commented the Moscow-based Expert magazine, Russia’s leading weekly specializing in economic analysis.

“But the [Obama] administration and the European Union seem to have chosen the costliest and the most painful way to manage this process,” it went on.



212926695_8.jpg

“We’re organising trade relations with countries other than China so that China starts feeling more pressure about meeting basic international standards,” Obama said referring to the TPP in a presidential debate in 2012 [Xinhua]

Indeed, Obama’s stance is a logical continuation of the policy line he made public during his tour of Southeast Asian nations in spring 2014, right before Putin’s visit to Beijing.

During his visits to Japan and Philippines, Obama promised US support in their disagreements with China.

This presidential move couldn’t have been more provocative as the verbal bickering betweenChina and Japan over the disputed Diaoyu/Senkaku islands was at its height, and the conflict between Russia and the US over Ukraine was leading to outright civil war there.

Backfire

The result of Obama’s actions in Japan and Philippines produced the opposite effect he had desired, however.

In May, and most likely under the impression of American hostility, Russia and China inched closer together and signed a landmark gas deal.

According to the agreements signed during Putin’s visit to Beijing that month, Russia is to supply 38 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year to China via a yet to be constructed pipeline named Sila Sibiri (“The Force of Siberia”).

Thanks to this deal, Russia is expected to get $400 billion and to diversify its gas exports, which had been geared to the European markets for over 40 years.

The current Russia-China deal is supposed to be implemented over the course of the next 30 years.

“Obama’s statements against China and Russia do not reveal a productive approach and reveal his lack of understanding of the region,” says Yuri Tavrovsky, a prominent Russian expert on China and Japan.

“Few people believe that the US can be a fair and balanced mediator between Tokyo and Beijing, [while] Washington’s bias against China is too obvious,” said Tavrovsky, who in the 1980s also consulted the Central Committee of the Communist party of the Soviet Union on relations with Tokyo and Beijing.

“Also the United States is showing a lack of subtlety on the issue of China’s wartime losses. Official Chinese figures say 35 million Chinese lost their lives during the Japanese occupation in 1930s and 1940s. This is a huge figure.”

Similarly, in Russia, relations with the US have soured over Washington’s support for the modern Ukrainian and Baltic nationalists.

These groups often pose as successors to the Ukrainian and Baltic nationalist movements of the 1940s.

But many of these movements have for decades been tarnished by their collaboration with the German Nazi leader Adolph Hitler.

During Hitler’s occupation of the Soviet territories between 1941 and 1945, these Ukrainian, Latvian and Estonian nationalists made their “contribution” to the killing of 27 million Soviet citizens, who perished during World War II.

So, even emotionally – when one considers the casualties and horrors inflicted during that war – Russian and Chinese grievances against the US become similar.



41d45318a55110a1a3a4.jpg

“The Russian-Chinese relations have become a crucial factor in accommodating the foreign policy interests of the two countries in the 21st century, playing a significant role in establishing a just, harmonious and safe world order,” said Putin on Thursday ahead of his Beijing visit [PPIO]


The anti-Beijing and anti-Moscow clique behind Washington’s foreign policy, which became all too apparent in recent years, is pushing not only Russia and China but also other BRICS countries to common protective measures against the US.


Layering the BRICS

BRICS’ leaders are planning to meet on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Brisbane on November 15-16.

As Putin meets with his BRICS allies, Obama seems to be deliberately isolating himself by refusing to meet the Russian president in Brisbane.

Analysts note that in Autumn 2013 Obama also refused to have talks with Putin at the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia.

Only a few weeks later, Obama needed Putin’s help in implementing the Russian plan of dismantling Syria’s chemical weapons.

This plan saved Obama from losing face after cancelling the White House strategy to launch airstrikes against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad’s forces.

BRICS has already established a $100 billion New Development Bank and a $100 billion Contingency Reserve Arrangement, both of which are supposed to provide additional financial protection to members in case of emergency.

For Russia, which is under financial sanctions from the US and the EU, these organizations of financial protection are a source of hope as the Ruble continues its six-month downward spiral.

China, which is a major contributor to the BRICS projects, is also interested in Russia’s energy reserves.

In this sphere, both countries’ interests converge.


This is significant for Moscow, which has been hearing for some time the EU’s threat that it will “lessen its dependence” on Russian gas exports.

Besides the controversial American plan of Trans-Pacific cooperation which excludes both of their countries, Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi Jinping are expected to make progress on the plans of an additional pipeline from Russia to China.

The so called Altai pipeline (also called the Western Itinerary) is expected to carry 30 billion cubic meters of gas to China.

The Russian energy minister Alexander Novak said the deal could be finalized by the first half of the year 2015.

A year ago, this plan would have more closely resembled a fantasy.

But it is precisely Washington’s aggressive support of the anti-Russian “revolution” in Ukraine and for anti-Chinese forces in Asia that has transformed this fantastic Russo-Chinese cooperation into a reality.
Obama spoke loudly and pompously about some "pivot to Asia". But as result of stupidity and lack of professionalism of his team, Russia has made the pivot to Asia. And for the US here remaining less and less space. "Allies" in the understanding of the United States - is dozens occupying US bases on your territory.
Alliance of Russia and China - horrible nightmare of Washington. But they themselves have contributed to this.
 
.
China doesn't need Russia in the UNSC, as it has its own veto. SCO is China's entity, not Russia's. BRICS does not exist as a meaningful entity other than a label for a specific grouping of countries (it's really China alone, plus the BRIS). It's fine for China to militarily cooperate with Russia, but I'd like to see a case where China needs Russia in any way militarily.

Russia's only contribution to China is through its natural resources, which places it firmly in the "supplier" category. Suppliers are subordinate to the client when an easily substituted commodity is involved, as it is in this case. Should Russia completely cut off supplies of energy to China (and destroy its own economy in the process), China would barely notice.

You may find your answer in history. Read about "The Hump" and the Soviet Japnese neutrality pact 1942.
 
. . . .
You may find your answer in history. Read about "The Hump" and the Soviet Japnese neutrality pact 1942.

This is too indirect for me to understand. What does the US effort to supply war materiel to the KMT have to do with Russia's subordination to China today? What does the Soviet refusal to help the allied war effort in the Pacific theater in WWII have to do with Russia's subordination to China today?
 
.
Ruble-yuan settlements will cut energy sales in US dollars – Putin
Published time: November 10, 2014 09:44

Doing away with the US dollar and switching to ruble and yuan payments will significantly increase Russia and China’s say in energy and financial markets, Vladimir Putin has said, adding that the first deals are already underway.

In short the President said the US dollar has no future, and that the ruble and the yuan have better long-term prospects.

“Payments in rubles and yuan are very promising. Switching to such a large-scale work means that the impact of the dollar on the global energy sector will objectively decline. This is not bad either for the global economy, or the world of finance and the world energy markets,” Putin said at the APEC Business Summit in Beijing Monday.

“It will help expand our capabilities in mutual trade and influence both world financial and energy markets," the president said.

Using local currencies will speed up trade between the two countries who are aiming to reach $100 billion by 2015. Trade between Russia and China is already nearly $90 billion, and is scheduled to hit $200 billion in the next six years.

"The People’s Republic of China is one of our key partners in the region. We will make greater use of settlements in our national currencies in our trade with China. We are already carrying out our first deals in rubles and yuan," Putin said.

Payments in national currency are planned particularly in trading oil and that Russian experts are currently assessing the possibility.

The two countries agreed on a currency swap worth up to $25 billion on October 13.

Moscow and Beijing aim for a broader use of the yuan and the ruble in mutual settlements across industries, including defense, telecoms, energy, and mining, possibly by one of Russia’s major companies, according to Putin.

Russia’s second biggest bank, VTB, has already begun to reorient business towards China and is working with Chinese regulators to remove restrictions to allow ruble transactions.

“Our contact with the leadership of China’s biggest banks shows they share this interest. This is consistent with the plan for China to bring the yuan to the next level and make it a hard currency,” VTB head Andrey Kostin said at the summit, as quoted by RIA.



uuu-1.jpg



A switch to domestic currencies is a huge move for Russia and China as both countries are members of the BRICS Bank which was established earlier this year to try and challenge the global dominance of the US dollar and such global lenders as the IMF and the World Bank.

READ MORE: BRICS countries near development bank deal to rival IMF, WB

China and Malaysia also announced a new bank that uses the yuan as a reserve currency, which means the dollar stands to lose its regional stronghold.

‘New level of cooperation’
The currency swap is just a notch in the belt in developing Russia-China economic ties. The two have grown closer over Russia’s disillusionment with the West over the Ukraine crisis and sanctions.

“Cooperation between Russia and the Asian-Pacific nations is of the utmost importance to us,” Putin said.

Symbolic of the deepening rapport was the signing of the second major gas deal in six months, which has the potential to make China Russia’s largest energy customer.

Putin named China as Russia’s biggest regional partner, and even offered the country stakes in Russian energy projects.

“We are also examining possibilities for our Chinese partners to acquire stakes in some of our biggest production assets,” Putin said.

On Sunday, Russia’s oil giant Rosneft and China National Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Corporation signed an agreement on the acquisition of a 10 percent stake in Vankorneft, a Rosneft subsidiary that develops oil in Russia’s Eastern Siberia. Rosneft has also offered China a share in its second-largest oil field, Vankor, which is estimated to have reserves of 520 million metric tons of oil and 95 billion cubic meters of natural gas.

Russia may opt to include China in the big oil and gas projects in the Far East, namely on Sakhalin Island, north of Japan. Among the international partners is Japan which has a 30 percent stake in the Sakhalin-1 project and a 22 percent in the Sakhalin-2.

@Chinese-Dragon , @Raphael , @tranquilium , @Edison Chen et al.
 
.
This is too indirect for me to understand. What does the US effort to supply war materiel to the KMT have to do with Russia's subordination to China today? What does the Soviet refusal to help the allied war effort in the Pacific theater in WWII have to do with Russia's subordination to China today?

I expected you to connect the dots. In a conflict with a major power, China is vulnerable to a naval blockade such as the one the Japanese successfully imposed on China in the 1940's. China's concern in this regard is clear from the weapons systems they develop such as the DF-21 and its theater of deployment.
 
.
I expected you to connect the dots. In a conflict with a major power, China is vulnerable to a naval blockade such as the one the Japanese successfully imposed on China in the 1940's. China's concern in this regard is clear from the weapons systems they develop such as the DF-21 and its theater of deployment.

Thanks for connecting some of the dots for me. I wonder if you could complete the puzzle by assessing the following issues:

1) Given the devastating effects such a blockade would have on all of the world's major economies, what do you assess is the likelihood that such a tactic would be pursued?

2) Moreover, given the strength of today's China vs. the civil war-wracked China that Japan was fighting against, do you even view a naval blockade as achievable today?

3) Given China's reach into central Asia with its Silk Road 2.0, and its "great friendship" with Pakistan, is Russia still vital in China's ability to avoid the fallout of a naval blockade?

As you can see from my questions, I'm still skeptical that China needs Russia, even in such an extreme scenario.
 
.
Thanks for connecting some of the dots for me. I wonder if you could complete the puzzle by assessing the following issues:

1) Given the devastating effects such a blockade would have on all of the world's major economies, what do you assess is the likelihood that such a tactic would be pursued?

2) Moreover, given the strength of today's China vs. the civil war-wracked China that Japan was fighting against, do you even view a naval blockade as achievable today?

3) Given China's reach into central Asia with its Silk Road 2.0, and its "great friendship" with Pakistan, is Russia still vital in China's ability to avoid the fallout of a naval blockade?

As you can see from my questions, I'm still skeptical that China needs Russia, even in such an extreme scenario.

1) not likely, though I wouldn't put anything pass anybody.

2) By Japan? Hell no. By US? It's not impossible to achieve today, but it'll get harder as the years go by, to eventually impossible.

I'm not just talking military.

3) Is Russia vital? Define vital. IS Philippines vital to the US? No, but it's nice to have them do your bidding. Now Russia is no Philippines and they won't and shouldn't do our bidding, which makes them a even better irritant to the US.



All in all, blockade with ships is unlikely, but with things like the TPP, but not necessarily the TPP, the US is showing what it's intentions are.

So the real battle isn't fought on the battle field, it's fought in the board room.
 
.
I expected you to connect the dots. In a conflict with a major power, China is vulnerable to a naval blockade such as the one the Japanese successfully imposed on China in the 1940's. China's concern in this regard is clear from the weapons systems they develop such as the DF-21 and its theater of deployment.

A naval blockade will only happen if the Chinese P.L.A.N is neutralized, doing that would take be devastating to achieve even for both the combined forces of the USN's 7th Fleet and the JMSDF. In this hypothetical scenario, there will be devastating losses on merchant shipping fleets, which will hurt Japan, United States, China and the rest of the world. The waters near the Malaccas Straits and the South China Sea will be a graveyard for ships.

The point is, Sir, a direct naval conflict will devastate not only China, but also Japan and the United States. There is no win-win scenario. This is the reason why diplomatic capital has been utilized to find solutions to problems. Nations are not static entities, they, like living organisms, are adaptive, with traits that were defined by Allport. These cardinal traits define nation states just as they define individuals. And one thing we notice is that nation states have teh ability to adapt to situations, make compromises (which we have seen lately in the ECS region).

Lastly, I want to reiterate that United States, China and Japan are the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd greatest economies in the world, respectively. A war involving these three great powers will lead to a global economic crisis of epic proportions.
 
.
Harder to effectively enforce on naval blockage on China in the future since China will at least formed 2 aircraft battle group with the next 6 yrs, SCS within range of China land base air force, China on their process to build the unsinkable carrier on the far post of SCS. In other to contain China navy in SCS, the many layers of defense have to be defeat for other naval forces keep China navy away from the SCS. China just need naval base in Cambodia will effectively provide the protection needed for China navy from the front to the rear of the naval conflict zone. Russia also the key to provide China raw material in case of China face the any naval blockage, China can use the land route through Pakistan to have raw material deliver to China. If the Silk Road being construct in the near future, China will have good option to sustain supply line of raw material in the future conflict. Japan is an islets form nation without any land connectivity with other nation, Japan will always susceptible to naval blockage more so than China.
 
. .
Harder to effectively enforce on naval blockage on China in the future since China will at least formed 2 aircraft battle group with the next 6 yrs, SCS within range of China land base air force, China on their process to build the unsinkable carrier on the far post of SCS. In other to contain China navy in SCS, the many layers of defense have to be defeat for other naval forces keep China navy away from the SCS. China just need naval base in Cambodia will effectively provide the protection needed for China navy from the front to the rear of the naval conflict zone. Russia also the key to provide China raw material in case of China face the any naval blockage, China can use the land route through Pakistan to have raw material deliver to China. If the Silk Road being construct in the near future, China will have good option to sustain supply line of raw material in the future conflict. Japan is an islets form nation without any land connectivity with other nation, Japan will always susceptible to naval blockage more so than China.
China are building a naval base in Cambodia? Since when?
 
. .
Back
Top Bottom