Discussing Biden's Potential China Policy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 15887
  • Start date

horse

Senior Member
Registered Member
Trump and Pompeo served U.S. interests better than the muppets running the state department right now...

There, I said it.

With Trump and Pompeo the decisions may be rash and outlandish, but at least they make logical sense. China refuses to capitulate in a trade war? Increase tariffs. Huawei refuses to die? Stop fabs from making Hisilicon chips. Each step is a logical escalation of the previous. Whereas the Biden admin... to this day I have no clue what their actual foreign policy strategy is, let alone end game.

President Trump's tactical moves had some merit, I agree.

How that was connected to the larger strategic picture, that was to come later I always assumed, but that day never came.

We are just left hanging, waiting for President Trump to return.

Does he still have a chance?

:D
 

Agnus

New Member
Registered Member
The problem with "gathering allies" is everyone's has their own interest and dynamic that all conflict with each other when comes to China. If you want align all of those interests to keep everyone happy , any action taken will be hollow because it needs to take in so many conflicting interests. The only thing that all US allies agree with is keeping China pegged in within the first island chain.
 

weig2000

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

From the article

"Someday, the United States should
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in containing and competing with China. But that policy should be initiated with a democratic Russia, not an autocratic Putin — however far in the future that moment might be."

So in other words, in order for russia to become an american ally, we must install a puppet president in the kremlin, america expect a vassalage not alliance, no future putin successor will ever agree to ally with america

This opinion piece has exactly one key insight (for the Americans anyway):

Advocates of the “Nixon-goes-to-China” strategy forget the essential precondition for its success: the Sino-Soviet split. ... By the time national security adviser Henry Kissinger
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in 1971, he did not need to convince Premier Zhou Enlai to distance China from Moscow; that divorce had occurred long before.

He was only partially right in diagnosing today's relationship between Russia and China though:

By contrast, Chinese-Russian economic, security and ideological ties today are
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Vladimir
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
: autocrats versus democrats. He sees Xi Jinping as his most important ideological partner, while Xi, in turn, has called Putin his “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.” So why would Putin abandon his autocratic soul mate to flirt with a democratic leader he’s met only twice?

The China-Russia relationship is not ideology-driven. On the contrary, it's strategic, as well as economic and security. Michael McFaul is unwilling to acknowledge it. The US can not offer what Russia gets from a close partnership with China, let alone at the expense of having an antagonistic relationship with China. China is Russia's biggest trading partner - where else can Russia find a bigger market for its energy, natural resources and even grain? China also offers Russia genuine opportunities to work with China as equal partner in space, aviation and nuclear power, something the US and the West are unable or unwilling to do. A friendly relationship with China also means peace and security along one of the longest borders in the world between two powers. Given Russia's vast and sparsely populated land, it is quite significant. Last but not least, both Russia and China support a multi-polar world, and neither of them can accept less than equal relationship with the US or West.

The rest of the opinion piece are just bunch of BS. The guy is trying to delude himself and his readers that Russia is not a partner worth having anyway, after making a good case that Russia is not a partner the US can get. The whole arguments are based on Biden's doctrine about democracy vs autocracy. In other words, more BS.
 

DarkStar

New Member
Registered Member
This opinion piece has exactly one key insight (for the Americans anyway):



He was only partially right in diagnosing today's relationship between Russia and China though:



The China-Russia relationship is not ideology-driven. On the contrary, it's strategic, as well as economic and security. Michael McFaul is unwilling to acknowledge it. The US can not offer what Russia gets from a close partnership with China, let alone at the expense of having an antagonistic relationship with China. China is Russia's biggest trading partner - where else can Russia find a bigger market for its energy, natural resources and even grain? China also offers Russia genuine opportunities to work with China as equal partner in space, aviation and nuclear power, something the US and the West are unable or unwilling to do. A friendly relationship with China also means peace and security along one of the longest borders in the world between two powers. Given Russia's vast and sparsely populated land, it is quite significant. Last but not least, both Russia and China support a multi-polar world, and neither of them can accept less than equal relationship with the US or West.

The rest of the opinion piece are just bunch of BS. The guy is trying to delude himself and his readers that Russia is not a partner worth having anyway, after making a good case that Russia is not a partner the US can get. The whole arguments are based on Biden's doctrine about democracy vs autocracy. In other words, more BS.
Mcfaul is the guy who pissed off the Russians as US ambassador to Russia; what must he be smoking to make him believe Russians will betray China for Anglo Americans?
 

DarkStar

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

Looks like Biden evacuated the US troops from A-stan because they're now using ISIS militants as ground troops whilst they provide air support and transport; effectively the US is pursuing a Syria grey war strategy in A-stan; they're going to get ISIS to attack CPEC and Chinese projects in AfPak whilst using their air force to kill taliban and afghan militants who try to stop ISIS.

Ideally, Russia and China via the SCO and russia's allies should enforce a no fly zone in A-stan to prevent the anglos from doing such perfidy.
 

Top