SampanViking said:Fu Man Chu you are not Tony Blair are you? when I read your responses all I could hear was his voice.
Sticks and stones, Sampan, sticks and stones. Please step out of the sandpit and discuss things maturely.
Now this is the jist of the matter that may not be fully understood - unless any of the co-signaturies actively break their treaty commitments (usually considered an act of War by the betrayed treaty members) all Peace Treaties between the SCO members and the Intervening third party nation(s) will be cancelled and a technical State of War exist between these countries
So you're telling me that they could be definitely at war with the US, which probably would retaliate, or severely piss China off but probably not get into a fight with it, as it wouldn't want to have a multiple-fronted war going on. I think I'd take the latter option, especially if China broke the status quo across the Taiwanese Strait.
Bearing in mind that the US certainly has bases in countries that it would be technically be war with, not to mention in one (can't remember which) has an Airbase only twenty miles from a Russian one, hostilities no matter how unplanned can very easily happen.
Could happen. It doesn't mean that it would happen. And as I said, it is quite possible to offer the minimum amount of support required. As cabbage said, it would be useful if you notified us of where we could find these "defence provisions" and what they specifically say.
Personally I think Russia would try to reach an understanding with the US so that such an escalation wouldn't happen.
In any case, Russia is the only country that matters - the others are irrelevant to the Taiwan conflict.
Remember, just because a country does not launch an attack today, does not mean they will not tomorrow - which is what I meant by escalation. This was the principle employed by the Royal Navy when it sank the General Belgrano in 82. This is what I meant by Russia maybe not having a choice.
Since when was the Belgrano an escalation? We were already at war!
The effects of Russia breaking its treaty committments to the one country that is primarily responsible for funding the Russian Govt sufficiently to enable it in the 90's to maintain its territorial integrity are hardly difficult to predict. Cue massive unrest and disintegration of Eastern Russia and the emergence of well funded Pro- Beijing Republics. The worst America would do is kill a lot of troops and bomb a lot of Peripheral Infrastructure.
Could you explain to me how not backing China to the hilt would destroy its economy, yet declaring war on the most powerful country in the world wouldn't, especially given that a large number of countries back the latter? These are the current figures I have for Russia's international trade:
Exports: Germany 7.8%, Netherlands 6.5%, Italy 6.3%, China 6.2%, Belarus 5.7%, US 4.6%
Imports: Germany 14.0%, Belarus 8.6%, Ukraine 7.7%, China 5.8%, US 5.2%
Are you telling me that Russia would back China up completely over circa 6% of its exports/imports, yet start a war with the European Union in another case and risk much more in trade? The E.U. may well impose sanctions on China and Russia if things got out of hand - in which case Russia loses out a lot more than if it had found a way to keep out of the conflict.