Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 15887
  • Start date

Gatekeeper

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Anglo shrieks in pain as he strikes you.

the US embassy in France invited the taiwanese diplomat for some sort of shindig; did these imbeciles expect China to stay silent?

The Anglo expectation is for Chinese to stoically accept their continuous insult, abuse, assault, bullying and slap in the face.
To not do so otherwise is considered aggressive and repression and against their rule of law.

They are delusional to think Chinese will accept this and not respond.

For those of us from the pre-digital age. this it's like a stuck records. Rule-based order. Blah blah. We are not there to contain China. Blah blah.

Gee. So a big paw wah to talk about China. Let's see what shit they will come up with.

 

crash8pilot

Junior Member
Registered Member

4Runner

Junior Member
Registered Member
According to Morris, the big issue is the work culture in the US.

So unless you can hire away the whole team, and get management to accommodate them, you won't get the same productivity.
You are on the money. That is a key point that many of those advocating decoupling don't understand. It is a popular saying in Taiwan that TSMC climbs to the pinnacle of semi fab by sacrificing the health of a generation. Manufacturing is not as easy as it looks or sounds. Just look at the track records of Foxconn trying to set up in Brazil, India and Wisconsin (
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
). The sad part is that Intel has lost its process domination since they hired that Qualcomm dude. To a long time observer of Intel vs AMD, the Intel process fiasco is way more damaging to the US economic health than Boeing.
 

bajingan

Senior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the author argues that its imperative that the us to drive a wedge between China and russia, no matter how small especially in the artic,

"Some
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
have recommended a “reverse Nixon” strategy of cozying up to Russia to pull it away from China. We instead suggest a far more modest and incremental approach designed to demonstrate to the people around Putin the benefits of a more balanced and independent Russian foreign policy. The ground for pursuing such a strategy is narrow, but Washington could start with its stated desire to use the February extension of the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty as a jumping-off point for dialogue on arms control, strategic stability, and nonproliferation. The United States could further engage with Moscow to facilitate Iran’s return to the 2015 nuclear deal and secure a stable peace in Afghanistan.

In the Arctic, too, the United States could work to slow Moscow’s turn toward Beijing. Washington should immediately move to restart the Arctic Chiefs of Defense (CHODS) forum, a space for dialogue with Russia and other U.S. Arctic partners about the region’s growing militarization. Although the Arctic Council is the area’s primary governing body, its mandate does not include security and military issues. The Arctic CHODS forum could be charged with designing military guidelines to avoid conflict among all parties. Such efforts would not only stave off a dangerous escalation that could derail other U.S. policy priorities but might also provide a springboard for additional U.S.-Russian cooperation"

Moreover

"Russian actions, including military escalations and persistent efforts to undermine democratic institutions, limit diplomatic possibilities in the near term. Meaningful engagement will be minimal so long as Putin remains in power. Sustained and incremental efforts to work with Moscow in ways that advance U.S. interests, however, can demonstrate to the elite around Putin that an alternative to subservience is possible"

So regime change and persuading russian officials to betray putin will still be the main strategy, what a way to get someone to be on your side lol

Finally

"The Chinese-Russian relationship is not impermeable, and the United States should not shy away from proactive measures to exploit its fissures. U.S. efforts to capitalize on minor tensions may not change the overall trajectory of the two countries’ relationship. But driving even small wedges between the partners can contribute to friction and mistrust that limit the extent of cooperation. In the Arctic, for example, Russia is seeking to limit the role of non-Arctic states— especially China—in regional governance. The United States should support Moscow in this endeavor, as it shares an interest in limiting Chinese influence in the region. Separately, Russia is a major arms seller to countries that have territorial disputes with China, including India and Vietnam. Yet the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act—passed by Congress in 2017 to limit Kremlin revenue from arms exports—prevents Russia from selling weapons to New Delhi. Policymakers should consider providing India with a waiver to purchase Russian weapons, thereby allowing natural fissures between Beijing and Moscow to grow.

Finally, Washington should be far more vocal with Moscow about how Chinese behavior harms Russian interests. A long-standing tenet of Russian foreign policy is to establish Moscow as an independent and unaligned actor in a multipolar world. Some analysts and Russian elites are therefore concerned about Russia’s growing subservience to Beijing. As China encroaches on Russian interests in Belarus, Iran, and elsewhere, the United States should seek to raise questions among the Russian people and ruling elite about the wisdom of the current approach, in the hope that future leaders will chart a more neutral course"

I don't think any of this will work to sabotage China russia strategic partnership, as both knows if one falls, then he will be next
The best chance the us got to do that was trump, now with biden in charge, not a snow ball chance in hell, as always a delusional article
 

gadgetcool5

Senior Member
Registered Member
At least the US is trying, despite having major differences with Russia. China should try to drive wedges between the US and South Korea, India, and Europe as well. And be more vocal about how Japan's place under the US thumb has only brought it stagnation and decline.
 

solarz

Brigadier
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

the author argues that its imperative that the us to drive a wedge between China and russia, no matter how small especially in the artic,

"Some
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
have recommended a “reverse Nixon” strategy of cozying up to Russia to pull it away from China. We instead suggest a far more modest and incremental approach designed to demonstrate to the people around Putin the benefits of a more balanced and independent Russian foreign policy. The ground for pursuing such a strategy is narrow, but Washington could start with its stated desire to use the February extension of the New START nuclear arms reduction treaty as a jumping-off point for dialogue on arms control, strategic stability, and nonproliferation. The United States could further engage with Moscow to facilitate Iran’s return to the 2015 nuclear deal and secure a stable peace in Afghanistan.

In the Arctic, too, the United States could work to slow Moscow’s turn toward Beijing. Washington should immediately move to restart the Arctic Chiefs of Defense (CHODS) forum, a space for dialogue with Russia and other U.S. Arctic partners about the region’s growing militarization. Although the Arctic Council is the area’s primary governing body, its mandate does not include security and military issues. The Arctic CHODS forum could be charged with designing military guidelines to avoid conflict among all parties. Such efforts would not only stave off a dangerous escalation that could derail other U.S. policy priorities but might also provide a springboard for additional U.S.-Russian cooperation"

Moreover

"Russian actions, including military escalations and persistent efforts to undermine democratic institutions, limit diplomatic possibilities in the near term. Meaningful engagement will be minimal so long as Putin remains in power. Sustained and incremental efforts to work with Moscow in ways that advance U.S. interests, however, can demonstrate to the elite around Putin that an alternative to subservience is possible"

So regime change and persuading russian officials to betray putin will still be the main strategy, what a way to get someone to be on your side lol

Finally

"The Chinese-Russian relationship is not impermeable, and the United States should not shy away from proactive measures to exploit its fissures. U.S. efforts to capitalize on minor tensions may not change the overall trajectory of the two countries’ relationship. But driving even small wedges between the partners can contribute to friction and mistrust that limit the extent of cooperation. In the Arctic, for example, Russia is seeking to limit the role of non-Arctic states— especially China—in regional governance. The United States should support Moscow in this endeavor, as it shares an interest in limiting Chinese influence in the region. Separately, Russia is a major arms seller to countries that have territorial disputes with China, including India and Vietnam. Yet the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act—passed by Congress in 2017 to limit Kremlin revenue from arms exports—prevents Russia from selling weapons to New Delhi. Policymakers should consider providing India with a waiver to purchase Russian weapons, thereby allowing natural fissures between Beijing and Moscow to grow.

Finally, Washington should be far more vocal with Moscow about how Chinese behavior harms Russian interests. A long-standing tenet of Russian foreign policy is to establish Moscow as an independent and unaligned actor in a multipolar world. Some analysts and Russian elites are therefore concerned about Russia’s growing subservience to Beijing. As China encroaches on Russian interests in Belarus, Iran, and elsewhere, the United States should seek to raise questions among the Russian people and ruling elite about the wisdom of the current approach, in the hope that future leaders will chart a more neutral course"

I don't think any of this will work to sabotage China russia strategic partnership, as both knows if one falls, then he will be next
The best chance the us got to do that was trump, now with biden in charge, not a snow ball chance in hell, as always a delusional article

As usual, Western pundits writing masturbatory fantasy.

Nixon approached China AFTER relations with Soviet Union deteriorated. Nixon did not drive any wedge between the two countries.

The truth is, Putin has been seeking Chinese support for years, and until now China had been unwilling to alienate relations with the US.

If ever in doubt, Putin just needs to look at Erdogan and see what happens to a supposed American "ally" when their usefulness expires.
 

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
What the West is banking on with Russia is white nationalism. They're not going to say it out loud but that's what they're doing. A non-white superpower that they don't control is the most dangerous thing they can think of. Blinken just stated that China has been acting aggressive? I don't see China bombing and flying armed drones over other countries like the US. Like I've been saying before, China just existing throws everything they've been taught to believe out the window. That's why China is so dangerous to them. China shows the world that they don't have to do it their way and that's a nightmare scenario for the West because how will they control everyone if everyone is not going to them to know how to do things?
 
Top