4 ms·

It’s like the exact story happened in reverse

by imwillofficial 4y ago

jacquesm 4y ago
Except for the small detail that nobody cares about invading Russia.
- macintux 4y ago
  China might, as Siberia warms and Russia’s military forces are depleted.
  - imwillofficial 4y ago
    No, China has no interest in this.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      China has an interest in the normalization of reconquest and regional spheres of influence superceding other norms, and an interest in both Russia and the West being focussed on conflict in Europe.
      - rnk 4y ago
        Yes, because the next big attack of a major country invading a weaker democratic country will be China invading Taiwan. Unless Russia gives up on that meany Ukraine and attacks the belligerent Moldavia (expands the separatist region) because they want a victory.
        imwillofficial 4y ago
        The remaining Azov troops just surrender in Mariupol, they have been winning pretty hard lately.
      - mcv 4y ago
        Despite its totalitarianism, China isn't very expansionist or aggressive. Significantly less than Russia and the US. Wasn't their last war the annexation of Tibet in 1951? They do make it very clear that they consider some countries and territories an intrinsic part of China (Taiwan obviously, Hong Kong, and this was also the case with Tibet), but they're generally not very aggressive about taking them, and extremely patient about waiting for the right moment, and tend to do it with minimal bloodshed. So far at least. (And only in their expansion; they have far less scruples about domestic bloodshed.) That said, I believe the Soviet Union has taken quite a bit of land from China a long time ago, and although they haven't made any claim on that land yet (unlike with Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea), I can imagine China might want it back when the time is right for it. Like a serious collapse of Russia. But I don't think they'll go to war over it. Also, apparently there exist some Finnish imperialists who'd like to annex Karelia, and possibly some other parts of North-West Russia.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Despite its totalitarianism, China isn't very expansionist or aggressive That's...debatable, but it has one particular clear, specific interest in normalizing reconquest of formerly-held territories, irrespective of whether it is “aggressive” or “expansionist“ in any general sense. > Significantly less than Russia and the US. While it has integrated as states some territories it already held in that time, the US has been anti-expansionist since 1947, voluntarily relinquishing formerly-held territories and seeking neither to acquire new ones nor to reassert sovereign control over former ones. (The US may exercise strong influence over foreign states, including many that it formerly administered as territories, and may entertain the idea of integrating existing territories as states, but territorial expansion hasn't been on the table for a while.) China, in the same time period, has launched several wars for territorial expansion. > Wasn't their last war the annexation of Tibet in 1951? No. Excluding internal (even arguable, like several with the ROC) wars, since 1951 they've fought in the Korean War, several wars with India, the Vietnam War, several wars against Vietnam after the Vietnam War, and some others. Against both India and Vietnam, particularly, their goals in involved territorial expansion.
        4y ago
- sudosysgen 4y ago
  Invading, no, but regime change? Absolutely (see Western involvement in the Russian civil war and, well, all of the cold war)
- freeflight 4y ago
  That's not the impression one would get following the last two decades of geopolitics. In the 90s the dangers of NATO expansion were still very much recognized and voiced [0] when Clinton was working towards it. Bush didn't follow straight up, had 9/11 to deal with and used that to justify quitting anti-ballistic missile treaties in Europe [1], allegedly to defend against Iran, when in practice it very much killed a "nuclear impasse" that kept Russia comfortable, and then Bush suddenly also started talking about NATO expansion [2]. All of that was already quite suspect to Russia, so it was agreed to give Russia something like a voice at NATO [3], which never went past symbolism, but allowed Russia to save at least some face and was supposed to calm nerves. That was needed, because the US invasion, and following NATO occupation of Afghanistan translated to histories largest NATO operation, right in the backyard of Russia. Consultation with Russia about that; Zero What followed was more NATO expansion, the US further undermining established European security frameworks [4] to degree that Russia would simply quit them out of protest. Afaik, right now there is only one security treaty still in effect between Russia and the US, New START, which is about keeping total arsenals of both parties in check. But in terms of security treaties regulating the stationing of conventional troops or treaties regulating the placement of ballistic missile systems in Europe, there's literally nothing left to keep everybody in check. A situation, that from Russia's PoV is one the US has actively worked towards [5] for these last two decades, along-side it's steady NATO expansion. Disclaimer; None of this is meant to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but said invasion is very much the result of consistently ignoring Russia's own security demands, and warnings, for literally decades. That's why from the Russian PoV they are not in Ukraine on the "offensive to invade all of Europe", from the Russian PoV the bear is cornered and fighting off a still approaching aggressor, after years of roaring at it not to approach further. [0] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/international/bushs-speech-on-nato-enlargement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/international/bushs-speec... [3] https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_Forces_in_Europe#NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_F... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa

It’s like the exact story happened in reverse

jacquesm 4y ago

Except for the small detail that nobody cares about invading Russia.

macintux 4y ago
China might, as Siberia warms and Russia’s military forces are depleted.
- imwillofficial 4y ago
  No, China has no interest in this.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    China has an interest in the normalization of reconquest and regional spheres of influence superceding other norms, and an interest in both Russia and the West being focussed on conflict in Europe.
    - rnk 4y ago
      Yes, because the next big attack of a major country invading a weaker democratic country will be China invading Taiwan. Unless Russia gives up on that meany Ukraine and attacks the belligerent Moldavia (expands the separatist region) because they want a victory.
      - imwillofficial 4y ago
        The remaining Azov troops just surrender in Mariupol, they have been winning pretty hard lately.
    - mcv 4y ago
      Despite its totalitarianism, China isn't very expansionist or aggressive. Significantly less than Russia and the US. Wasn't their last war the annexation of Tibet in 1951? They do make it very clear that they consider some countries and territories an intrinsic part of China (Taiwan obviously, Hong Kong, and this was also the case with Tibet), but they're generally not very aggressive about taking them, and extremely patient about waiting for the right moment, and tend to do it with minimal bloodshed. So far at least. (And only in their expansion; they have far less scruples about domestic bloodshed.) That said, I believe the Soviet Union has taken quite a bit of land from China a long time ago, and although they haven't made any claim on that land yet (unlike with Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the South China Sea), I can imagine China might want it back when the time is right for it. Like a serious collapse of Russia. But I don't think they'll go to war over it. Also, apparently there exist some Finnish imperialists who'd like to annex Karelia, and possibly some other parts of North-West Russia.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Despite its totalitarianism, China isn't very expansionist or aggressive That's...debatable, but it has one particular clear, specific interest in normalizing reconquest of formerly-held territories, irrespective of whether it is “aggressive” or “expansionist“ in any general sense. > Significantly less than Russia and the US. While it has integrated as states some territories it already held in that time, the US has been anti-expansionist since 1947, voluntarily relinquishing formerly-held territories and seeking neither to acquire new ones nor to reassert sovereign control over former ones. (The US may exercise strong influence over foreign states, including many that it formerly administered as territories, and may entertain the idea of integrating existing territories as states, but territorial expansion hasn't been on the table for a while.) China, in the same time period, has launched several wars for territorial expansion. > Wasn't their last war the annexation of Tibet in 1951? No. Excluding internal (even arguable, like several with the ROC) wars, since 1951 they've fought in the Korean War, several wars with India, the Vietnam War, several wars against Vietnam after the Vietnam War, and some others. Against both India and Vietnam, particularly, their goals in involved territorial expansion.
        4y ago
sudosysgen 4y ago
Invading, no, but regime change? Absolutely (see Western involvement in the Russian civil war and, well, all of the cold war)
freeflight 4y ago
That's not the impression one would get following the last two decades of geopolitics. In the 90s the dangers of NATO expansion were still very much recognized and voiced [0] when Clinton was working towards it. Bush didn't follow straight up, had 9/11 to deal with and used that to justify quitting anti-ballistic missile treaties in Europe [1], allegedly to defend against Iran, when in practice it very much killed a "nuclear impasse" that kept Russia comfortable, and then Bush suddenly also started talking about NATO expansion [2]. All of that was already quite suspect to Russia, so it was agreed to give Russia something like a voice at NATO [3], which never went past symbolism, but allowed Russia to save at least some face and was supposed to calm nerves. That was needed, because the US invasion, and following NATO occupation of Afghanistan translated to histories largest NATO operation, right in the backyard of Russia. Consultation with Russia about that; Zero What followed was more NATO expansion, the US further undermining established European security frameworks [4] to degree that Russia would simply quit them out of protest. Afaik, right now there is only one security treaty still in effect between Russia and the US, New START, which is about keeping total arsenals of both parties in check. But in terms of security treaties regulating the stationing of conventional troops or treaties regulating the placement of ballistic missile systems in Europe, there's literally nothing left to keep everybody in check. A situation, that from Russia's PoV is one the US has actively worked towards [5] for these last two decades, along-side it's steady NATO expansion. Disclaimer; None of this is meant to justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but said invasion is very much the result of consistently ignoring Russia's own security demands, and warnings, for literally decades. That's why from the Russian PoV they are not in Ukraine on the "offensive to invade all of Europe", from the Russian PoV the bear is cornered and fighting off a still approaching aggressor, after years of roaring at it not to approach further. [0] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/international/bushs-speech-on-nato-enlargement.html https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/international/bushs-speec... [3] https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html https://www.nato.int/nrc-website/en/about/index.html [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_Forces_in_Europe#NATO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_F... [5] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.usa