New Cold War???

Oh this thread is just asking to get closed. While it's still up here is my 2cents. I would say, with the current economic climate, the USA will just spend itself into oblivion (like it already is). Which is good news for China. I guess they aren't learning the lesson from Russia the first time around.

Well, speaking of the cold war, is Russia and china's relation good lately?

sry i didnt explain what i meant clearly. I think that it appears that relations between the U.S and China, and U.S and Russia are deteriorating. Russia appears to be trying to reassert itself in Eastern Europe, such as Ukraine when it was trying to join NATO or when Estonia tried to take down a statue of a former soviet hero last year and air patrols close to Alaska. This is almost a return to the Soviet Days. Also it appears with that shooting down of satellites by China and US is a return to the arms race. I was just wondering wat peoples opinion was on this, and whether people think this is a similar political atmosphere as to that of the cold war.

This is definitely not cold war...far from it.

The Sino-US relationship is too complex, they cannot be purely enemy because of their close economic ties. Imagine if US tries to stop all import from China at this moment. No one dares to imagine the consequence. The Chinese side might fare better in short term due to the large foreign reserve. As for Russia, no one is taking them too seriously except for the western european country that depends on russian energy export.

Personally I think the US relationship with China is better than it was a few years ago. Just look at how bush is reluctant to even say boycot for the Olympic despite western european nation making noise about the possibility of boycot.

Well take a page from the propaganda. It accuses that China's labor force is all slave labor. If it's all slave labor then if all of the sudden the US pulled out of China nearly nothing would happen to China. They're not getting paid making their products. Like not slave laboring for a Western corporation is a greater hardship? Everyone just got a vacation. And Western prices for their goods shoot up no matter what other country they decide to move to.

The probability of a new cold war is very slim. Take a look at current relationships between nations and you can see why.

In the Cold War, the world was divided into 2 mutually exclusive spheres: the "Free World" and the "Communist Bloc". These two spheres were independent in a sense that one's success does not rely on another. They had minimal diplomatic contact and trade was non-existant. Conflict was only avoided through mutually assured destruction.

Today's world is a lot more interlinked. China and Russia are part of the WTO. The United States is China's main export market (customer)and China is one of the United States' main trading partners. An economic recession on one, affects another, as we have seen in the recent sub-prime mess. Therefore, each side has a say on the other side's success. This interdependence, that they can be prosperous together, will prevent a new Cold War from starting.

http://larouchepac.com/
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/200...asian_war.html
The Case of Tibet, Now Considered

It is from this vantage point, alone, that the case of the onrushing destabilization of the Chinese province of Tibet—ostensibly launched with anti-Chinese Tibetan independence riots in the capital city of Lhasa on March 10—can be assessed. The target of this destabilization, as well as the soon-to-be unleashed destabilization of China's Xinjiang Province, by Muslim Uighur separatists, is China. London intends to provoke a confrontation between China and the West, to be the opening phase of a larger Eurasian war, soon to target Russia and India as well.

Tibet has been a playground for British intelligence operations against China for more than a century, based on the initial British colonial-era interest in establishing a buffer state between its India colonies and China, and using that buffer state, on key occasions, to provoke actual war.

It was during the early 1930s, as Russia and China were being militarily challenged by Britain's ally Japan, that Britain trained and armed a separatist army, under the 13th Dalai Lama, to split Tibet out of China. At the same time, Britain trained and armed a Uighur Muslim uprising in southern Xinjiang Province in western China, which promoted then, and still does, to this day, an independent, mythical "East Turkestan."

In May 1933, the Soviet news agency TASS reported on the Uighur uprising and its links to the British-led actions in Tibet, in terms that could easily describe the British plans being activated today: The Xinjiang uprising, TASS wrote, "must be considered as definitely connected with the operations of Tibetan troops.... There is no doubt that interested imperialist countries are endeavoring to utilize the present moment to set up in Xinjiang, a Mohammedan state hostile to China, which would be dependent upon them and would serve as a buffer between the U.S.S.R. and China in the northwest, just as 'Manchukuo' [the Japanese puppet state] does in the northeast."

One of the architects of those 1930s Tibetan and Xinjiang operations for British intelligence was Hugh Richardson (1905-2000), a third-generation veteran of the British Foreign Office's India Office, who spent nine years in Tibet during the 1930s and 1940s, and became the British "handler" of the young 14th Dalai Lama, as well as the protector, after World War II, of the leading Nazi agents in Tibet, including Heinrich Harrer and Bruno Beger. A recipient of the Order of the British Empire, Richardson was the architect of the "independent" Tibet hoax, and recruited a next generation of British intelligence Tibet-handlers, including Michael Aris (the husband of Aung San Suu Kyi, the British intelligence-run Myanmar "opposition" leader). Upon his "retirement" in 1951, Richardson established the Tibet Society of the U.K., at the time the only non-governmental organization in the world that disputed Chinese sovereignty over Tibet; and later founded the Richardson Foundation, to recruit young Tibetans to British service.

Richardson, himself, had been recruited and trained by Basil Gould and Sir Charles Bell, two earlier Tibet handlers for the British secret services, who had worked on the original British invasion of Tibet in 1903, with Francis Younghusband, the military commander of that operation, which, in effect, sealed off Tibet from China. Richardson was the author of secret British intelligence profiles on Tibet, and a series of published works, profiling the culture and history of the Himalayan region.

Cold war, I believe unofficially it never stopped.

I also believe that economical relations are not as important as the race for energy resources. China is trying hard to develop good relationship with African countries but USA is trying to stop this big time.

Russia has millions of tons of natural resources as gas, oil, etc. US ultimate goal is to get hold of Russia one day. I know, I know, most of you are laughing now, but I just hope we will all live long enough to witness this.

Before you start arguing just do me a favour, go on google video and search for a movie "power of nightmares". It is a BBC documentary, so no crappy conspiracy drama. It comes in three parts, each part goes for an hour. Enjoy.

Since the disintegration of the former Soviet Union, the U.S has become the world's sole military superpower, and the establishment of its world hegemony. Which hegemonic status, the U.S will be able to enjoy it in the interests of a better world.
But the U.S must prevent its hegemonic position was being challenged, and such potential challenges from China and Russia, the world only China and Russia have this condition in the future to challenge the hegemony of the U.S. Therefore, the U.S dare not relax at all alert, do everything possible to gather all the world's pro-US forces on China and Russia strategic siege, and its core strategy is to build a missile defense system, the U.S use of its powerful force, conquering neighboring China and Russia countries and regions, and started to build these places missile defense system, and seeking in the U.S in the nuclear advantage.
Because China and Russia with U.S do not have the ability to directly confront, which for the U.S, can only be regarded as a potential threat, in fact, is that the U.S and its allies on the absolute superiority of the siege than China and Russia, and China and Russia only make every effort to break the siege of the U.S and its allies, this situation is not regarded as the Cold War confrontation between the parties because strength too asymmetric, China and Russia in self-defense only nuclear weapons.
Different era and the Cold War, the U.S is facing the greatest threat to another, international terrorism and other anti-US countries may be nuclear threats, as well as all kinds of unpredictable attacks, the world crisis that may arise and so on.
These are the possible threat to the U.S hegemony, and all of them, U.S needs China and Russia cooperation,in fact, China and Russia itself does not want confrontation with U.S.
And the structure of the world economy has fundamentally changed the global economic integration, satisfy the interests of all parties, no more ideological struggle, the major national boundaries should join hands to resolve future global potential crisis, these are not the Cold War possible reasons.
There are so many countries around the world, national, interest groups, conflict and strife is inevitable, but it will not become the Cold War.in the early,Russia display of force, only that it is at a disadvantage, under siege,to U.S and its allies expressed dissatisfaction in a way, like a troubled polar bears, a growl.

The global power matrix is much more complex and diverse than during the old days of the ´Cold War´but like yesteryear it's all about perceptions.

Without doubt the rules of the game have been extended (trade, investment, technology etc.) but the most striking difference between the role of the PRC in the current global power structure and that of the former USSR's 20 years ago is the completely inverse perception of comprehensive power. (i.e. the USSR was perceived during her heyday significantly more powerful than her true capabilities would have justified but today the PRC is perceived significantly less powerful than her true influence would indeed indicate.)

The chinese leadership should be aware that the mere fact of being bullied around by western politics for rather minor incidents in Xizang (...compared with the real slaughter in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia ...) is a direct consequence of a ´defective´ and ´unreal´ perception of China in the western world. Put simply western elites do not see China as an established major power potentially shaping the course of the 21st century but as a struggling albeit giant developing country continously appeasing western power for economic gain. Beijing will have to correct this misperception in an effective but sensible manner or the consequences for China will be dire...

The Cold War never stopped. The Cold War had nothing to do about communism and was all about American imperialism. The Soviet Union simply provided the best boogeyman with which we could then justify endless escapades. However, obviously our cold war with the Soviet Union was real, though exaggerated, but it never actually stopped. What happened is we continued to try and contain Russia and bend them to our will.

On China we've been engaged in a cold war with them for some time. Our attempts to woo India and our giving the green light to Japan for remilitarization is about containing China much like we contained the Soviet Union keeping them in their little sphere as we dominated the rest.

On this same point we are also engaged in a cold war with Iran.

Granted none of these are at the scale of the Cold War prior to the fall of the Soviet Union.

The way forward for the United States is pretty clear. Weather or not the United States actually follows some or all of these policy prescriptions, is an open question.

1-- Since Iraq looks to be a failure, it is probably best to simply withdraw entirely not only from the Middle East but from most of the military bases the United States maintains overseas. Landlocked military facilities to be the first to be deactivated, while Naval facilities would be retained or decommissioned on a case-by-case basis.

2-- The United States must tell each of her allies that they're going to be militarily pulling out of the Pacific and Europe for economic reasons. A few years should be given for Thailand, South Korea, Japan and of course Taiwan to shore up their defenses against China. Poland and the Nordic countries would have to have time to shore themselves up against any misadventures on the part of Russia.

3-- The United states should also help Europe/Russia avoid massive immigration from high birth rate Muslim countries. Europe will be reluctant to do this for much the same reason that the United States is loath to limit immigration from its southern border. High immigration tends to offset economic difficulties of running a welfare state during a massive post war baby boom. As painful as such reform would be, it's easy compared to dealing with un-assimilated Muslim populations in European countries or the possibility that France could become a Muslim country if immigration trends continue.

If reforming the Middle East proves unsuccessful (as now seems likely) then most of the region will simply have to be contained.

3B-- Containing the Middle East/Russia/Venezuela will have to include developing alternative solar, wind, nuclear, biomass, and hydrogen energy sources. Speeding up this sort of research with government subsidies would be constitutionally permissible, given the fact that denying oil revenues to all of the current major oil exporters, would be squarely in US military interest. (And possibly in the interest of preserving a stable climate). (Please note that containment of Russia's energy export aspirations would be distinct from containing Russian immigration and emigration which are not a threat to the West due to Russia's sharply declining population and the current male-female ratio of its citizenry)(trends which are the exact opposite the Middle East)

China and India are already installing quite a bit of alternative energy. The United States simply as a foreign policy objective, would do all it could, to accelerate the adoption of alternative energy worldwide. If the United States, China and India could be made entirely independent of foreign oil, most of the problems emanating from oil export countries could be brought to heel.

4-- Comprehensive reform of both Social Security and Medicare will be needed in the United States. The gold standard and some sort of flat tax may also be policies that would shore up the United States economy/attract investment. Reform of the educational system of school vouchers and merit pay for instructors, will probably be a must for long term economic growth. Massive privatizeation of domestic social programs might give the federal government, money enough to pay down some of its 10 trillion dollar debt.

5-- Developing a missile defense umbrella to protect Europe, Israel, Japan, Thailand, South Korea, India the Philippines and Taiwan is a definite must. Research and development for better technology to detect weapons of mass destruction, aboard container ships and other instruments of world trade would also be wise.

6-- Due to the demonstrated vulnerability of satellite surveillance technology, the United States should make efforts to establish a moon base ahead of competitors.

Systems should also be created to "clean up" orbital space near the planet earth, removing a hazard to future space launches.

Collaboration instead of competition should be encouraged with Russia concerning the future manned Mars missions.

Working with Russia and Japan on tracking and defending against rogue asteroids and comets.

7-- Any future estrangement between India and China should be used as a opportunity to set up India as a counterweight to China. An emphasis on gradually increasing trade with India and gradually reducing it with China, would be wise if Chinese reforms toward representative government continue to be stalled.

8-- Economic foreign aid around the globe should be largely discontinued apart from any future impending world war conditions.

9-- Restore older interpretations of civil liberties, privacy and treatment of enemy combatants to United States law. Full restoration of constitutional protections of the citizens against government intrusion, would be a great way to lead by example, on the world stage.

The United States must tell each of her allies that they're going to be pulling out of the Pacific and Europe for economic reasons.

All that does is make countries more independent or more reliant on another country like... China? Ironic! They aren't going to be the cannon fodder of US foreign policy when they don't benefit from the US. Pull out economically and how are many of those countries going to buy US defenses to beef-up with what dollars they no longer make because of a US economic pullout?

Though the new US administration will have to apply some quite painful adjustments in her new ´global strategy´ alas a radical disengagement from East/South-East Asia seems indeed very unlikely. Possibly Washington may be not very amused about the sprawling double-dealing of ´allies´ like Singapore, Thailand and even the Phillipines but leaving them high and dry would only accelerate China's establishment of her own ´Pax Sinica´ in the region.

After a liquidation of the Iraq adventure and some kind of ´stabilization´ of Afghanistan (probably including Pakistan and Iran) the US would probably try to strike a ´deal´ with Iran regarding a face saving disengagement (i.e. retreat) from Iraq and about some acceptable limitation of Iran's nuclear projects. (...though McCain would possibly try to exert more pressure on Iran.)

(More extensive ´realignments´ of US foreign policy are somewhat inconceivable from my POV but an upcoming severe economic crisis in the US could turn the tables..., looking just at how Treasury Secretary Paulson was all but smiles with Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao during his visit in Beijing. Someone obviously needed some money...)