Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy

j17wang said:

You nailed it. Russia lost 25% of its people to defeat European conquerors during the last world war

Click to expand...

Putting aside the question of whether Russians are European or not (it was certainly European prior to the establishment of the Soviet Union), other Europeans (read the British) helped keep Russia afloat via the Arctic Convoys during the German invasion. This was even after Russia had stabbed the UK and France in the back by signing a non-aggression treaty with Germany and carving up Poland in 1939, which made defence of it impossible.

There is a popular idea that Russia alone won the war, but in reality its manufacturing and war effort would have ground to a halt if it had been on its own, because it imported so much in the way of raw materials and fuel, as well as vehicles and aircraft early on to hold the line. There were Allied convoys to Russia via alternate routes, but it's not clear what the US would have been able to do if the Germans had been in complete control of Europe.

If modern Russia suffers from a selective memory, remembering only German aggression but forgetting British & US assistance, that's not the fault of Europeans today.

BoraTas said:

It is pretty much exactly like you said. The West simply failed utterly in managing its relationship with Russia. We are back to 1948. In the interconnected world of the 21st century it shouldn't have ended up like this.

Click to expand...

I would say Russia has had plenty of time to reach out to successive European and US governments. Have you forgotten Obama's attempt to "reset" relations with Moscow, only for the Russians to spit in his face because they took it as a sign of weakness? Then there's the fact that the EU has continued to maintain good economic relations with Russia. It even got the point where Russia was able to , and Russia only got a slap on the wrist via explusion of diplomats.

Generally speaking, Russia has got what it wanted in the last decade. It was even able to annex Crimea with barely any opposition. Didn't that make it happy and reassure itself that its neighbours weren't waiting for an excuse to attack?

If there has been a failutre to manage the relationship with Russia, it's because Russia has acted perversely, always seeking to destabilise and divide its neighbours rather than just get on in a sense of cooperation like everyone else wants. I suppose the lesson, if there is one, is that peaceful coexistance is impossible whilst Russia is effectively a nationalist one-party state, unless a firmer line is taken rather than more appeasement.

Mr T said:

I would say Russia has had plenty of time to reach out to successive European and US governments. Have you forgotten Obama's attempt to "reset" relations with Moscow, only for the Russians to spit in his face because they took it as a sign of weakness? Then there's the fact that the EU has continued to maintain good economic relations with Russia. It even got the point where Russia was able to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and Russia only got a slap on the wrist via explusion of diplomats.

If there has been a failutre to manage the relationship with Russia, it's because Russia has acted perversely, always seeking to destabilise and divide its neighbours rather than just get on in a sense of cooperation like everyone else wants. I suppose the lesson, if there is one, is that peaceful coexistance is impossible whilst Russia is effectively a nationalist one-party state, unless a firmer line is taken rather than more appeasement.

Click to expand...

I agree with what you said but lets not forget the colour revolution in Ukraine instigated by the US.

So the things are not as white and black as they seem to be. Russia certainly didnt help itself with its actions, but the US was provoking things undercover

voyager1 said:

I agree with what you said but lets not forget the colour revolution in Ukraine instigated by the US.

So the things are not as white and black as they seem to be. Russia certainly didnt help itself with its actions, but the US was provoking things undercover

Click to expand...

@voyager1 that is what I hate about Obama, being the first black President, he acted as he is holier than thou, no wonder the Republican hates him.

voyager1 said:

Agreed. We still dont know what will happen to the carrier. I guess it will eventually end to in the Indo-Pacific against China.

However for now the most risk is the Ukraine Russia situation.

I think when the Russia FM came to China he got the green light to escalate if Ukraine makes a move.

Click to expand...

Why would the Russian needs a green light from China?

antiterror13 said:

Why would the Russian needs a green light from China?

Click to expand...

From what I understand, as long as Russia doesn’t do anything to harm China, I guess China let’s them do what ever since really Russia isn’t a weak nation that needs guidelines like Japan or India

Not a greenlight but a confirmation that China has its back

Mr T said:

Putting aside the question of whether Russians are European or not (it was certainly European prior to the establishment of the Soviet Union), other Europeans (read the British) helped keep Russia afloat via the Arctic Convoys during the German invasion. This was even after Russia had stabbed the UK and France in the back by signing a non-aggression treaty with Germany and carving up Poland in 1939, which made defence of it impossible.

Click to expand...

When the UK was pursuing appeasement with the Germans in Czechoslovakia the Soviets were the ones pushing for war with Germany to retaliate. France had a defense agreement with Czechoslovakia. France did not help Czechoslovakia either. Prior to that France had tried to make a coalition of Eastern European nations aimed at fighting the Soviet Union. This made the Soviets suspicious of UK and French motives. The Soviets tried to negotiate with the British and the Germans at around the same time. The British sent their delegation by boat and the Germans sent theirs by plane. The rest is history.

Mr T said:

There is a popular idea that Russia alone won the war, but in reality its manufacturing and war effort would have ground to a halt if it had been on its own, because it imported so much in the way of raw materials and fuel, as well as vehicles and aircraft early on to hold the line. There were Allied convoys to Russia via alternate routes, but it's not clear what the US would have been able to do if the Germans had been in complete control of Europe.

If modern Russia suffers from a selective memory, remembering only German aggression but forgetting British & US assistance, that's not the fault of Europeans today.

Click to expand...

Actually most historians think even then the Soviet Union would still have won the war. When the fighting was hardest the amount of help received was minimal. By the time help had expanded to be significant the Soviets were already on the counter offensive. The aid was useful sure, and shortened the war.

The nation which suffered the most in WW2, which is forgotten often, and shouldn't be especially in this forum was actually China. The Soviet Union would be second.

Mr T said:

I would say Russia has had plenty of time to reach out to successive European and US governments. Have you forgotten Obama's attempt to "reset" relations with Moscow, only for the Russians to spit in his face because they took it as a sign of weakness? Then there's the fact that the EU has continued to maintain good economic relations with Russia. It even got the point where Russia was able to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and Russia only got a slap on the wrist via explusion of diplomats.

Generally speaking, Russia has got what it wanted in the last decade. It was even able to annex Crimea with barely any opposition. Didn't that make it happy and reassure itself that its neighbours weren't waiting for an excuse to attack?

If there has been a failutre to manage the relationship with Russia, it's because Russia has acted perversely, always seeking to destabilise and divide its neighbours rather than just get on in a sense of cooperation like everyone else wants. I suppose the lesson, if there is one, is that peaceful coexistance is impossible whilst Russia is effectively a nationalist one-party state, unless a firmer line is taken rather than more appeasement.

Click to expand...

The Russians must be really incompetent with their Novichok poisoning antics. They never managed to kill a single person they supposedly tried to kill with it. Yet Kim managed to kill his brother with VX first time. Novichok is supposedly a lot more poisonous than VX. Like 10x.

Obama's "reset" wasn't followed through by Russia? They agreed on nuclear arms reductions, reduction of plutonium stockpile, helped convince Syria to get rid of their chemical weapons, and made the nuclear deal with Iran possible. But you think they did nothing.

"you don't mess up with Putin without paying a price." a former assistant state secretary said so.

the Nord2 is almost completed, Russia has invested heavily in it. some people want to terminate it in the final stage. I don't think Putin wants to escalate at the moment, but if meddlers get their way, Putin will strike.

Mr T said:

I would say Russia has had plenty of time to reach out to successive European and US governments. Have you forgotten Obama's attempt to "reset" relations with Moscow, only for the Russians to spit in his face because they took it as a sign of weakness? Then there's the fact that the EU has continued to maintain good economic relations with Russia. It even got the point where Russia was able to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and Russia only got a slap on the wrist via explusion of diplomats.

Generally speaking, Russia has got what it wanted in the last decade. It was even able to annex Crimea with barely any opposition. Didn't that make it happy and reassure itself that its neighbours weren't waiting for an excuse to attack?

If there has been a failutre to manage the relationship with Russia, it's because Russia has acted perversely, always seeking to destabilise and divide its neighbours rather than just get on in a sense of cooperation like everyone else wants. I suppose the lesson, if there is one, is that peaceful coexistance is impossible whilst Russia is effectively a nationalist one-party state, unless a firmer line is taken rather than more appeasement.

Click to expand...

This is a valid point of view too though it is also arguable that Russia was provoked by NATO expansion. Crimea and Georgia campaigns were mostly about preventing their NATO accession.