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

[Chinese-Dragon]

We should forever be indebted to Mrs. Clinton for ruining "the reset." That was probably the closest moment when the US would have a chance to take down China.

Probably we will be thankful to Mr. Kerry for supporting radical terrorism in Syria, because that is, although a nightmare for the region, realistically, not so bad for China because it has the potential to keep the US busy for years to come.

Russia is a great ally to have, even if America didn't constantly get itself stuck in Middle Eastern quagmires.

 

[Lure]

Well on the recent events, China made it clear that US policy makers should always put China into equation when dealing with Russia. Thus China would be internationally responsible for Russia's actions. This is a great source of power but also a great responsibility. I guess from now on, China will be percieved as a direct adversary instead of a potential one for US policy makers.

As I've told before being able to stop the "mini cold war" (Asia pivot) is China's first serious challenge in the region now, because there will be less and less middle east or Russia in US foreign policy and more and more Asia-Pacific. Meaning China is becoming the main target of the US foreign policy.

For a long time after it's opening up China had never made any real effort to lead the anti-western polar of the world. It always seeked a balance among the "west" and the "east" in terms of relations. However those policies naturally came to an end. China has no way going back to it's old foreign policy after saving Russia from US imposed sanctions.

However I would wish for a different solution. It's a world wide know fact that US politics can bought. And it's a solid fact that China has a very strong diaspora and multinational cooperations (unlike Russia). Why not make lobby and push for what China wants in the US -just like Israel and many other European country does- instead of jumping on the bandwagon with Russia who has no clear international policy option other than publicly "brawling" US?

China has so many options for taking what it wants compared to Russia. I hope Chinese policy makers are keeping that in mind.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Well it's true.

Similar to the Cold War, there are 3 main poles. USA, Russia, and China (and the allies of all three).

In a system with 3 poles, the idea is to get 2 of them together in order to gain the advantage.

USA missed a big chance, they could have courted Russia to be at least neutral to their cause.

But now, the Russians won't forget these sanctions for a 100 years. The USA has forever turned Russia into their enemy. An enemy with the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet.

How is Russia a pole exactly?

The only thing that Russia has is a lot of land, a lot of nukes, and lot of oil.

Russia is a 2 trillion economy, which is in recession. (Japan is a 4 trillion dollar economy, European Union combined a 17 trillion dollar economy)

Russia has 140 million people, with an average percapita GDP of just above middle class.

Russia has almost no industry of any note, apart from Soviet legacy military complex.

Far more research happens in Germany alone, then the whole of Russia.

Russia is now surrounded by NATO, upto its borders.

Almost all nearby countries hate Russia, especially in Eastern Europe.


I would say, the actual poles are US, Europe, China, and then the rest are small regional actors.

 

[cirr]

Seriously, who gonna believe it. If the drill is not to flex muscles against US and the West, then who China and Russia show off to? Alien?

You don't have to believe anything，just stay believing in yourself。

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

However I would wish for a different solution. It's a world wide know fact that US politics can bought. And it's a solid fact that China has a very strong diaspora and multinational cooperations (unlike Russia). Why not make lobby and push for what China wants in the US -just like Israel and many other European country does- instead of jumping on the bandwagon with Russia who has no clear international policy option other than publicly "brawling" US?

Well Russia openly "brawls" with the US as you say, while we stay in the background setting up a parallel international system, with organizations like the AIIB (which America's own allies ended up joining) and the SCO, among others.

Seems like a synergistic relationship.

Having an internal lobby inside America seems difficult. USA politics is very sceptical of anything that could be seen as pro-Russia or pro-China, with shades of the old McCarthyism.

 

[TaiShang]

Really good points. Thank you for the constructive post, which we miss these days.

Well on the recent events, China made it clear that US policy makers should always put China into equation when dealing with Russia. Thus China would be internationally responsible for Russia's actions. This is a great source of power but also a great responsibility. I guess from now on, China will be percieved as a direct adversary instead of a potential one for US policy makers.

That's very interesting take although any Russian diplomat would disagree with. I am not sure whether siding with Russia on major global issues would by default mean being accountable for all of Russia's behavior. In the case of Ukraine Crisis, China has chosen not to overtly support Russia and adopted an oft-used rhetoric of political solution between the related (direct) parties.

The US in fact attempted a pact with Russia during the Reset period but for some reason it derailed. That could be due to private interests and in-fighting in Washington. As most of us know, Washington is a not a unitary colossus, but an amalgamation of private and group interests that keep fighting and trying to steer the country to their own benefit. They do it more elegantly due to sophisticated methods and instruments, but, still, this does not rule out the fact that the inner struggle has been rather fierce.

In my opinion, the winning side decided to estrange Russia and bring it on to China in the form of the Pivot. With Russia on the board or not, I believe China had already been decided as the new enemy. The mistake they made included taking Russia lightly. And China has proven to be an able international actor. None of the neo-liberal and neo-realist postulations by US political scientists have come about.

As I've told before being able to stop the "mini cold war" (Asia pivot) is China's first serious challenge in the region now, because there will be less and less middle east or Russia in US foreign policy and more and more Asia-Pacific. Meaning China is becoming the main target of the US foreign policy.

I believe both Middle East and Russia will loom larger in the US foreign policy, and even largely so if a Republican gets the White House. On the Eastern front, on the other, escalation and war effort against DPRK has been stalled by China. The TPP is all over the place. The effort to stop China's island development program has failed and become the new normal. Today, nobody is talking about it except some MA students who want to get published online. China declared an ADIZ and rendered the DiaoyuDai a disputed island (thanks to Japanese recklessness, I should add).

For a long time after it's opening up China had never made any real effort to lead the anti-western polar of the world. It always seeked a balance among the "west" and the "east" in terms of relations. However those policies naturally came to an end. China has no way going back to it's old foreign policy after saving Russia from US imposed sanctions.

But the trade relations with the US has been just as good. And geopolitical struggle has always been on the agenda. The Taiwan Straits Crisis took place in 1996. They bombed our embassy in Belgrade. The spy-plane accident in the 2000s. So, there has always been a struggle while China made business connections with all over the world. The balancing is in fact stronger these days as the US declines as the representative of the West. Now the UK and Germany can jump onto the AIIB wagon despite the US explicitly says the otherwise. And I cannot think of a better "East-West integration" program than the One-Belt, One-Road program, which has been announced in 2013. I agree that China will have to take more assertive posture but I do not see China being pushed to choose between East or West. China is just too big to choose. It embraces all.

However I would wish for a different solution. It's a world wide know fact that US politics can bought. And it's a solid fact that China has a very strong diaspora and multinational cooperations (unlike Russia). Why not make lobby and push for what China wants in the US -just like Israel and many other European country does- instead of jumping on the bandwagon with Russia who has no clear international policy option other than publicly "brawling" US?

That I would strongly disagree with. Especially if influencing US politics means hiring some lobby agency (probably, Jewish?) in Washington (I guess Turkey has done that) and try to influence decision making in the Congress.

Buying US politics is for Armenian diaspora, Israeli lobbyists, Arab oil sheikhs, or Turkish government who wants to fight Nancy Pelossi in Congress. That's just un-great powerish.

A great power like China would not resort to such tactics. For once, when it comes to China, the US is not that almighty. If China does not like something it vetoes (if it is on the UNSC) like it did two times with respect to Syria, or simply says 'no,' like it did with island development in SCS or ADIZ in ECS.

China, in this sense, does not jump on any bandwagon, be it Russian or US. The relationship with Russia is one of the equals. We are not obliged to do anything just for the sake of being a partner (this is unlike NATO which obliges the UK to fight alongside the US in the Middle East even when the general public does not want so). The SCO is not a NATO. China's foreign policy is not formulated in the conventional hard alliance or hub-and-spokes way.

@Chinese-Dragon

 

[IR-TR]

How is Russia a pole exactly?

The only thing that Russia has is a lot of land, a lot of nukes, and lot of oil.

Russia is a 2 trillion economy, which is in recession. (Japan is a 4 trillion dollar economy, European Union combined a 17 trillion dollar economy)

Russia has 140 million people, with an average percapita GDP of just above middle class.

Russia has almost no industry of any note, apart from Soviet legacy military complex.

Far more research happens in Germany alone, then the whole of Russia.

Russia is now surrounded by NATO, upto its borders.

Almost all nearby countries hate Russia, especially in Eastern Europe.


I would say, the actual poles are US, Europe, China, and then the rest are small regional actors.

What you say is true, but doesn't tell the whole story. Russia is number one in energy and mineral resources in the world. And it has arguably the most strategic location in the world. That, coupled with a strong military and lots of nukes, makes Russia a great power, though not as great as the US/EU or China or a future India. But still, not a small regional player either.

 

[rott]

Well it's true.

Similar to the Cold War, there are 3 main poles. USA, Russia, and China (and the allies of all three).

In a system with 3 poles, the idea is to get 2 of them together in order to gain the advantage.

USA missed a big chance, they could have courted Russia to be at least neutral to their cause.

But now, the Russians won't forget these sanctions for a 100 years. The USA has forever turned Russia into their enemy. An enemy with the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet.

USA's foreign policy is all messed up. They just bit more than they can chew.

Silly cheese burgers and freedom fries.

 

[anon45]

What you say is true, but doesn't tell the whole story. Russia is number one in energy and mineral resources in the world. And it has arguably the most strategic location in the world. That, coupled with a strong military and lots of nukes, makes Russia a great power, though not as great as the US/EU or China or a future India. But still, not a small regional player either.

Russia can't really be considered a typical regional player as you say, because its sheer geographical size precludes it.
That said it is the weakest of the poles economically and soft power wise, the others being US, EU, and China.

potential emerging poles being Brazil and India.

I wouldn't call Russia's location strategic, it's size is as much a curse as it is a benefit.

What is increasingly likely is, short of a stunning turnaround in Russian foreign policy, Russia will be beholden to the pole of China economically, in time becoming a secondary power to it as China holds more sway over the Russian economy, and Russia has nowhere else to turn.


An ascendant India could change this.

 

[xesy]

You don't have to believe anything，just stay believing in yourself。

I question neither your belief or mine, I merely pointing out the fact that it is ridiculous for any sane person to believe in such obvious lies from the govt.

 

[IR-TR]

Indeed, but Russia will always be 'beholden to' bigger economies, be it the EU or China. Indeed, Russia's best best is to play it in between an INDEPENDENT (non US-infested) EU, China and India. That would be Russia making the best of it's self. All three real poles need Russia's energy, and all three would 'respect' Russia because of it's military. Russia is really just a very big Kazakhstan when you think of it. Can be neutral with all major surrounding powers. But for now, it will become closer to China because the West (US) is out to encircle and destroy Russia.

Edit: About Brazil, and any other South American country: they're only really buddying up with China/Brics, because of economic interests, of because the US is terrorizing them (Argentina/Venezuela). Otherwise, those nations are just as 'white' and Western as the US and Europe. So in the very very far future, they'll be just as pro American as Mexico or Canada. So I wouldn't call Brazil an independent pole. India will be one, China already is one, and there will be a large 'Western' pole. Otherwise the numbers don't add up.

 

[Economic superpower]

Russia can't really be considered a typical regional player as you say, because its sheer geographical size precludes it.
That said it is the weakest of the poles economically and soft power wise, the others being US, EU, and China.

I wouldn't call Russia's location strategic, it's size is as much a curse as it is a benefit.

potential emerging poles being Brazil and India.

What is increasingly likely is, short of a stunning turnaround in Russian foreign policy, Russia will be beholden to the pole of China economically, in time becoming a secondary power to it as China holds more sway over the Russian economy, and Russia has nowhere else to turn.


An ascendant India could change this.

India ain't touching China. Whatever power India has, China will be significantly ahead of them.

 

[Place Of Space]

Russia can't really be considered a typical regional player as you say, because its sheer geographical size precludes it.
That said it is the weakest of the poles economically and soft power wise, the others being US, EU, and China.

potential emerging poles being Brazil and India.

I wouldn't call Russia's location strategic, it's size is as much a curse as it is a benefit.

What is increasingly likely is, short of a stunning turnaround in Russian foreign policy, Russia will be beholden to the pole of China economically, in time becoming a secondary power to it as China holds more sway over the Russian economy, and Russia has nowhere else to turn.


An ascendant India could change this.

ahaah, the west is pleased to despise Russia, but China won't.
In the cold war, Russia failed because Russia look down on China and push China into American camp..

 

[anon45]

Indeed, but Russia will always be 'beholden to' bigger economies, be it the EU or China. Indeed, Russia's best best is to play it in between an INDEPENDENT (non US-infested) EU, China and India. That would be Russia making the best of it's self. All three real poles need Russia's energy, and all three would 'respect' Russia because of it's military. Russia is really just a very big Kazakhstan when you think of it. Can be neutral with all major surrounding powers. But for now, it will become closer to China because the West (US) is out to encircle and destroy Russia.

That will have to be a hope for the long term,
Russia's military will not earn it 'positive' respect in the EU (primarily Eastern Europe), only fear in the short term due to the Soviet Union's legacy, this is regardless of the US having influence on EU decisions or not.

As long as Russia occupies Crimea and carries on a proxy invasion in Ukraine, there will be no neutrality for Russia in the EU for the medium term. I only say this because in the long term anything is possible.

India ain't touching China. Whatever power India has, China will be significantly ahead of them.

So the US though of China in the 1990's

 

[xunzi]

India being a pole is something I'm afraid I won't be living to witness. India has enormous problem and they haven't really figure out how to solve their energy need which will become a crisis in the future.

For Russia, it is a great power. Russia is a mature power. It has enormous strategic depth that across vast boundary and territories. Being on Russia's side is not a bad thing. Guarantee nuclear cover and energy, which is all we need when facing the US in an all out war, if that day ever comes. Although the current policy is not to take any side in the West vs Russia dispute, there is no question we favor toward the balancing act. We will continue to support and lift Russia when we see it is being push to the corner. This does not mean we are against the West as we have very favorable view and relation with European Powers. It means we protecting our securities and national interests by keeping the world multi-polar balance instead of submitting to the US unipolar hegemony.