Pentagon refocusses on Russia and China

#1
Yesterday, local daily newspaper here in Belgrad contained article about refocussing of US military's attention away from so called "War on Terror" operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and taking longer view that Russia and China are real threats.

The first 'premise' behind story is that US military, with Robert Gates' agreement (or vice-verca) has given up on GWOT, Iraq and Afghanistan as 'unwinnable' and just getting out as soon as possible is recommended. Then, as Middle East security deteriorates due to (lack of) security in Iraq, China and Russia start to exert their influence - in competition with US - to secure oil reserves and supply.

Second 'premise' is that both Russia and China see that US 'single superpower' status has been severly damaged by recent neo-conservative adventures. In effect, they see a 'power gap' has closed and that they feel they can now flex their mussels once again. Although the Whitehouse refuses to acknowledge this, a military is out of blocks and making preparations.

Sorry, no internet link to the story, hence my summary.

I now hear Putin has been unruffling some feathers in Munich.

Any thoughts?
 
#2
The whole thing's a smokescreen. Look to South America, in particular Venezuela and north to Cuba.

Castro's on the way. Chavez has oil, a democratic mandate, popular appeal and is snubbing the oil companies and spending the proceeds of the nation's wealth improving the lot of the people of Venezuela. That sort of scurrilous behaviour is an affront to capitalism - and will be seen as threatening to America's interests abroad. Expect trouble here.
 
#3
Hmm. China and Russia in cahoots? I doubt it - the Russkies see China as a place eyeing up Siberia and all of its resources - various low level engagements on the Sino - Sov border in the 60' and 70's etc.

GWOT unwinnable and refocussing? USA always had its eye on both Russia and China.

frenchperson, its a point of view its a point of view>

Anyway, why are you in Belgrade - Crni Gora surely?
 
#5
rickshaw-major said:
Hmm. China and Russia in cahoots? I doubt it - the Russkies see China as a place eyeing up Siberia and all of its resources - various low level engagements on the Sino - Sov border in the 60' and 70's etc.
The Sino-Soviet split was so obviously a fake. China has always been dependent on the Soviet Union/Russia's massive arms industry, and now both nations are leading the new SCO trade association/military alliance.
 
#6
BEIJING: For more than two decades, China has labored to build its first state-of-the-art jet fighter as part of the country's drive to become a leading military power.

In December, it appeared to have closed in on that ambition when it revealed, in an unusual blaze of publicity, that its new fighter, the J-10, had entered service in the air force.


They say that Chinese engineers, with help from Israel and Russia, had refined a design aimed at matching advanced aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-16, the frontline U.S. Air Force fighter that has also been sold to more than 20 countries.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/08/news/fighter.php
 
#7
Hereward said:
rickshaw-major said:
Hmm. China and Russia in cahoots? I doubt it - the Russkies see China as a place eyeing up Siberia and all of its resources - various low level engagements on the Sino - Sov border in the 60' and 70's etc.
The Sino-Soviet split was so obviously a fake....
Nonsense, the split was all too real in the 60's and 70's. The Bushies have fumbled the ball enough to drive them back into each other's arms. Twenty years ago the Chinese were dancing with us, ten years ago the Russians were. I'm sure the music won't stop anytime soon.
 
#8
frenchperson said:
The whole thing's a smokescreen. Look to South America, in particular Venezuela and north to Cuba.

Castro's on the way. Chavez has oil, a democratic mandate, popular appeal and is snubbing the oil companies and spending the proceeds of the nation's wealth improving the lot of the people of Venezuela. That sort of scurrilous behaviour is an affront to capitalism - and will be seen as threatening to America's interests abroad. Expect trouble here.
Is there enough tinfoil and are there sufficient aluminium milliners?
 
#9
Hereward said:
rickshaw-major said:
Hmm. China and Russia in cahoots? I doubt it - the Russkies see China as a place eyeing up Siberia and all of its resources - various low level engagements on the Sino - Sov border in the 60' and 70's etc.
The Sino-Soviet split was so obviously a fake. China has always been dependent on the Soviet Union/Russia's massive arms industry, and now both nations are leading the new SCO trade association/military alliance.
No it isn't and wasn't. You may as well say tha Chinas' nuclear weapons programme was dependent on a Chinese spy working in the US ERW programme. One was (allegedly) but it wasn't the be all and end all and

the US Courts cleared him of the offence.

Tinfoil hats on frenchperson
 
#10
Virgil said:
Hereward said:
rickshaw-major said:
Hmm. China and Russia in cahoots? I doubt it - the Russkies see China as a place eyeing up Siberia and all of its resources - various low level engagements on the Sino - Sov border in the 60' and 70's etc.
The Sino-Soviet split was so obviously a fake....
Nonsense, the split was all too real in the 60's and 70's. The Bushies have fumbled the ball enough to drive them back into each other's arms. Twenty years ago the Chinese were dancing with us, ten years ago the Russians were. I'm sure the music won't stop anytime soon.
Both nations have always been allies, Soviet trains were allowed through Chinese territory to supply the North Vietnamese. Had the US bombed the Chinese supply routes they would have prevailed easily.
 
#11
rickshaw-major said:
Hereward said:
rickshaw-major said:
Hmm. China and Russia in cahoots? I doubt it - the Russkies see China as a place eyeing up Siberia and all of its resources - various low level engagements on the Sino - Sov border in the 60' and 70's etc.
The Sino-Soviet split was so obviously a fake. China has always been dependent on the Soviet Union/Russia's massive arms industry, and now both nations are leading the new SCO trade association/military alliance.
No it isn't and wasn't. You may as well say tha Chinas' nuclear weapons programme was dependent on a Chinese spy working in the US ERW programme. One was (allegedly) but it wasn't the be all and end all and

the US Courts cleared him of the offence.

Tinfoil hats on frenchperson
You appear to be the gullible one, for believing a bunch of Communist mass-murderers.
 
#12
Hereward said:
Virgil said:
Hereward said:
rickshaw-major said:
Hmm. China and Russia in cahoots? I doubt it - the Russkies see China as a place eyeing up Siberia and all of its resources - various low level engagements on the Sino - Sov border in the 60' and 70's etc.
The Sino-Soviet split was so obviously a fake....
Nonsense, the split was all too real in the 60's and 70's. The Bushies have fumbled the ball enough to drive them back into each other's arms. Twenty years ago the Chinese were dancing with us, ten years ago the Russians were. I'm sure the music won't stop anytime soon.
Both nations have always been allies, Soviet trains were allowed through Chinese territory to supply the North Vietnamese. Had the US bombed the Chinese supply routes they would have prevailed easily.
No it proves that the USSR and China had a common aim - helping N Vietnam. Had the US bombed the Red River Dykes they would also have won by turning everyone in N Vietnam into a fish. However they limited their actions for many reasons.

Oh and the USSR and China had nukes!
 
#13
rickshaw-major said:
Hereward said:
Virgil said:
Hereward said:
rickshaw-major said:
Hmm. China and Russia in cahoots? I doubt it - the Russkies see China as a place eyeing up Siberia and all of its resources - various low level engagements on the Sino - Sov border in the 60' and 70's etc.
The Sino-Soviet split was so obviously a fake....
Nonsense, the split was all too real in the 60's and 70's. The Bushies have fumbled the ball enough to drive them back into each other's arms. Twenty years ago the Chinese were dancing with us, ten years ago the Russians were. I'm sure the music won't stop anytime soon.
Both nations have always been allies, Soviet trains were allowed through Chinese territory to supply the North Vietnamese. Had the US bombed the Chinese supply routes they would have prevailed easily.
No it proves that the USSR and China had a common aim - helping N Vietnam.
Yes. And that destroys your argument rather, doesn't it.
 
#14
Hereward said:
rickshaw-major said:
Hereward said:
Virgil said:
Hereward said:
rickshaw-major said:
Hmm. China and Russia in cahoots? I doubt it - the Russkies see China as a place eyeing up Siberia and all of its resources - various low level engagements on the Sino - Sov border in the 60' and 70's etc.
The Sino-Soviet split was so obviously a fake....
Nonsense, the split was all too real in the 60's and 70's. The Bushies have fumbled the ball enough to drive them back into each other's arms. Twenty years ago the Chinese were dancing with us, ten years ago the Russians were. I'm sure the music won't stop anytime soon.
Both nations have always been allies, Soviet trains were allowed through Chinese territory to supply the North Vietnamese. Had the US bombed the Chinese supply routes they would have prevailed easily.
No it proves that the USSR and China had a common aim - helping N Vietnam.
Yes. And that destroys your argument rather, doesn't it.
No. Having a common aim in one area of foreign policy doesn't make for an alliance. It makes for limited co-operation in that sphere. The reverse is also true; some alliances won't fully co-operate where individual members feel it detrimental to themselves.
 
#15
The US focus on Latin America is more of an incredulous double take. Chinese and Iranian 'technicians' abound in Cuba. Venezuela stocking up on Russian weaponry, Ortega back in power in Nicaragua etc, etc. Deja Vu!

The main focus will be on China who are expanding their influence everywhere in an effort to monopolise oil and other raw materials to sustain their economic momentum, they'll soon be 'stabilising' Nigeria and operating a naval base out of South Africa's Simonstown. Russia, once again schmoozing India, threatening to cut off Europe's oil and gas supplies. A new, though infinitely more economically debilitating (for the USA), Cold War.

It'll be quite interesting to see a new Asian alliance between a nuclear Japan, Vietnam and the USA with Europe twisting in the wind left to the tender economic mercies of the USSR err.. Russia.
 
#16
rickshaw-major said:
Hereward said:
rickshaw-major said:
Hereward said:
Virgil said:
Hereward said:
rickshaw-major said:
Hmm. China and Russia in cahoots? I doubt it - the Russkies see China as a place eyeing up Siberia and all of its resources - various low level engagements on the Sino - Sov border in the 60' and 70's etc.
The Sino-Soviet split was so obviously a fake....
Nonsense, the split was all too real in the 60's and 70's. The Bushies have fumbled the ball enough to drive them back into each other's arms. Twenty years ago the Chinese were dancing with us, ten years ago the Russians were. I'm sure the music won't stop anytime soon.
Both nations have always been allies, Soviet trains were allowed through Chinese territory to supply the North Vietnamese. Had the US bombed the Chinese supply routes they would have prevailed easily.
No it proves that the USSR and China had a common aim - helping N Vietnam.
Yes. And that destroys your argument rather, doesn't it.
No. Having a common aim in one area of foreign policy doesn't make for an alliance. It makes for limited co-operation in that sphere. The reverse is also true; some alliances won't fully co-operate where individual members feel it detrimental to themselves.
Well, unlike you, I feel more comfortable believing my own common sense than a bunch of Communist criminals in Moscow and Beijing.

Here is part of an interview with Christopher Story, a former economics adviser to Margaret Thatcher: http://reformed-theology.org/html/issue09/perestroika_03.htm

This is the final part of an interview with Christopher Story, editor of the London-based journal Soviet Analyst and of The Perestroika Deception by Anatoliy Golitsyn, the Soviet defector and author of New Lies for Old.

[...]

Q. In New Lies for Old, Golitsyn explained that the Sino-Soviet "split" was .false, .forming part of a deception designed to persuade the West that the world Communist movement was disunited. What is the current position?

A. The Sino-Soviet "split" was indeed a classic Leninist dialectical deception which masked the continuing collaboration between the two most important and powerful Communist Parties in the world, in pursuit of the long-range strategy which was ratified, as Golitsyn explained in New Lies for Old, at the Eighty-One Party Congress held in Moscow in November 1960. It was at that Congress that the Communist parties agreed to collaborate over a period of decades in pursuit of the objective of "convergence" leading to world government.

Golitsyn is most frequently attacked for his assertion that the Sino-Soviet "split" was false, because this particular element of the deception strategy is the most sensitive of all. If the West were to become aware that in fact the Russians and Chinese have been working closely together all along, and are the closest of allies, it would recognize the grave danger it faces. But of course, we now have a facade which perpetuates the illusion of the "split."

The Tiananmen Square atrocity in June 1989 provided a clear signal to Chinese dissidents that political perestroika was not about to be permitted in China. Golitsyn explains in The Perestroika Deception that the core demonstrators who appear to have been controlled and carried banners supporting the Chinese Communist Party suddenly marched out of the Square in formation. The shooting started after they had left; those who were killed were true dissidents who had traveled to Beijing to join in the demonstrations.

The current spectacle is of "non"-Communism in Russia and overt Communism in China. This preserves the illusion of the "split," and has provided the backdrop against which the two countries are collaborating in a coordinated military buildup of ominous proportions. The Russian-Chinese military agreement of 1993 has been followed by further accords, and the scale of China's buildup is now causing serious alarm in Western defense circles, which still do not understand that the two countries are allies.
 
#17
Hereward my dear chap - I wouldn't trust those tw@ts in Moscow or Beijing further than I could throw the proverbial. However the fact that they have a common enemy (the West - not just the USA) doesn't necessarily make them bedfellows.Its a point of view (mine!) but I supect that in the great bid for oil and other raw materials, the Chinese will continue to eye up Siberia and other juicy titbits e.g. Mad Chavs gaffe.

At this stage in time we should be speeding up the Carrier building process!!
 
#18
Communists don't really care about "eying up" territory, all they care about is world revolution, and they will do anything to achieve this internationalist goal which is at the very core of their criminal ideology. Major Golitsyn is the only Soviet defector to have emerged from the 'inner' strategic planning section of the KGB, and was privy to these Sino-Soviet deception plans in the 1950s and early 60s. Golitsyn's accuracy rate in predicting future Soviet strategy (94% for his 1984 predictions in New Lies for Old) is unrivalled, leaving Russian and Establishment-appointed "analysts" in the West far behind, which is why he remains under deep cover somewhere in West to this day.
 
#19
Jesus, Hereward, are you Devil Dog in disguise? I can't believe that anyone still believes the old Communist bogeyman line anymore. Do you honestly think that the people in power in China are actually Communists?

Land is important to any country, and in China far more so for the resources they need. Look at the Russian Army and ask yourself where their reforms and restructuring are being focussed - Central Asia first, then the Far East and then Europe coming well in the rear. Look at Russian trade and ask where the bulk of their energy exports go; not to China. Fair enough the pipelines don't exist, but neither did the Tibetan rail link or the all-weather roads to India until a reason occured.

They don't exist for a reason - Russia isn't willing to feed the dragon while the bear is still weak.
 
#20
It stretches credulity to its absolute bounds to think that suddenly, overnight, all those who were Communists will suddenly adopt a new philosophy and belief, with the result that everything will be different.

Christopher Gill MP, House of Commons, 8 June 1995
 

Latest Threads