Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Strategy for Engaging Russia-China Coalition

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by uftaipan, Aug 14, 2022.

What strategy should the U.S. and our allies follow to best deal with Russian and Chinese aggressio?

  1. Withdrawal

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Status Quo

    2 vote(s)
    12.5%
  3. Containment

    8 vote(s)
    50.0%
  4. Initiative

    6 vote(s)
    37.5%
  1. partdopy

    partdopy GC Hall of Fame

    1,493
    356
    1,973
    Feb 1, 2012
    Where's the choice to get the US and Europe independent from Chinese/Russian manufacturing and resources? Without this none of our actions really matter. If we do this and build up Africa and other Asian countries we can create an even larger informal alliance rather than allow China and Russia to take Africa's resources.

    China and Russia only know strength, if we keep trying to interact with them assuming they hold the same values as us we'll just continue strengthening our enemies.

    Not to mention none of the lefts climate agenda, lbgt agenda and human rights agenda really accomplish anything when we just outsource everything to countries that use slave labor to build their smartphones, release air pollution freely, actively persecute lbgt persons and use certain population groups as organ farms. It's just virtue signaling unless you stand up to the real perpetrators.

    The way things are going any of your choices will just allow China to grow unhindered until it has weaponized space, land, sea and air enough to be sure of victory while hoarding enough 3rd world alliances to not rely on others for resources. They are playing the long game and we need to as well, hard to do when politicians just look at what makes them the most money before the next election cycle.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 1
  2. uftaipan

    uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

    8,846
    2,077
    1,483
    May 31, 2007
    Fresno, CA
    The choice is, for instance, “I will take Containment with the additional specified economic measures of decoupling from the Chinese economy and doing as good or better than they of engaging Africa for trade deals.” Personally, I would prefer a world where we could have mutually beneficial trade relations with both China and Russia, but as long as they are on this trend of militarism and conquest, we have to stop doing any kind of interdependent business with them for two reasons: so that they don’t benefit economically or technologically from contact with us, and so we can walk away from them without catastrophic effect to our own economy in the event of war.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. shaun10

    shaun10 Senior

    279
    68
    1,828
    Apr 3, 2007
    Militarism and conquest are not a trend. As partdopy stated, China is playing the long game. They have been buying land across the globe for resources for years. They have been steeling technology for years. They have been building their military for years. They have played the capitalist game in order to build the wealth to support all of these things... for years. Our politicians and business leaders need to wake up. China is not our friend.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. uftaipan

    uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

    8,846
    2,077
    1,483
    May 31, 2007
    Fresno, CA
    I never said China was our friend. What I have said is that we still have policies that reflect U.S.-China relations from the early 1970s through the mid-1980s. They have updated the way they engage with us, and we have not updated the way we engage with them. And while you correctly state that militarism is not a new trend for China, if they make a move against Taiwan then conquest is indeed a new trend. Unlike Russia, which has been engaged in limited conquest since 2008, China has been far more reluctant to engage in adventurism. Sure, they build phony islands and fortify them, but I wouldn’t call that conquest over anyone but the fishes. A move against Taiwan is something different entirely.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. partdopy

    partdopy GC Hall of Fame

    1,493
    356
    1,973
    Feb 1, 2012
    These people really think war, militarism, tribalism and conquest are something you can solve by being nice. They don't realize these western values are not only a minority in the current time but also go against human nature as seen through all of history. Not saying they are good things but pretending we can be nice to others and live together in harmony is denying reality.

    China is willing to lie, steal and cheat to win and does so constantly. In fact their strategy relies on the west playing nice while China does these things. Being nice and honest is great but only when the entity you're reacting with shares the same values. If they don't you either force them to or suffer them doing so to you. That's what all of human history tells us.

    No matter, our leaders are more concerned with enriching themselves and buying votes to make the good long term choices that require short term suffering. You think Trump or Biden and their families will suffer either way? Doubtful.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  6. shaun10

    shaun10 Senior

    279
    68
    1,828
    Apr 3, 2007
    Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you said they were a friend. And I agree with pretty much everything you said above. I do, however, think conquest can come in different forms, and a complete land grab, like Taiwan, is not necessarily the way China may go about doing it. With technology playing an increasingly greater role in our daily lives, business and the military, it is important that we have access to the resources required to make the components that make up said technology. China has been purchasing land all over the world for years for that exact purpose. It is also important that we have intelligent people that are capable of staying ahead of them in the fields of AI, cyber-security, communication platforms, etc. Conquest, in the future, may be achievable without putting one boot on the ground.
     
  7. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    14,060
    5,221
    3,208
    Nov 25, 2017
    Russia has been engaged in conquest in modern times since the 1940s when they stopped Germany and began their push west. They are not spreading communism today, but if you view their prior actions as installing friendly governments where they actively engaged or used proxies or revolutionaries, it isn’t neigh different.
     
  8. uftaipan

    uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

    8,846
    2,077
    1,483
    May 31, 2007
    Fresno, CA
    Historically, Russia has always been expanding or dying. Oversimplified history here: They pushed west through the Baltics until they hit a wall with Poland and split Ukraine with them. They pushed northwest through Finland until they hit a wall with Sweden. They pushed east into China until they hit a Wall (literally and figuratively this time) and the Pacific. Once they ran out maneuver space in Eurasia, they cast covetous eyes on North America, even coming up with an interesting plan to forcibly populate Alaska with its troublesome eastern tribes and slowly take over Canada and what is now the western U.S. One theory is that the British, who were in the then mid-1800s rubbing up against Russian expansion in Afghanistan and China, figured out what the Russians were up to in North America and convinced the U.S. to drop its opposition to the British in Oregon (54-40 or Fight!) and go after California instead, because the British understood that the Mexicans could never resist the Russians moving down the Pacific coast. I don’t know if any of that is true, but the timing is quite a coincidence. What is true is right around the 1860s is when Tzarist Russia was unable to expand farther in any direction and started to die from within. Same thing with the Soviets. They grew stronger from grabbing territory all the way into the 1940s until we put a wall around them, and they began to die. Hopefully, the same will prove true of revisionist Russia. But we do have to put up that wall to stop their expansion.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    14,060
    5,221
    3,208
    Nov 25, 2017
    Agreed. The form of government and economic systems have changed, but not the nature of Russian leadership. I was focusing on WW2 and thereafter Russia.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2022
  10. chemgator

    chemgator GC Hall of Fame

    13,510
    1,889
    1,318
    Apr 3, 2007
    It is a conquest over international law (it is my understanding that it is illegal to build an island out of a sandbar or coral reef and inhabit it, much less militarize it). Which is the first step towards making your own rules for how to treat the rest of the world. If the powers that be do nothing significant when you break one of their minor laws, then it is an invitation to break a more substantial law and see what happens.
     
  11. uftaipan

    uftaipan GC Hall of Fame

    8,846
    2,077
    1,483
    May 31, 2007
    Fresno, CA
    I don’t disagree with you. And that’s why it’s U.S. policy to sail warships right by their “islands” and ignore the territorial claims so we don’t inadvertently normalize them. But surely you agree that an invasion of Taiwan would represent an entirely different degree of what we are discussing relative to building and arming some artificial islands.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. chemgator

    chemgator GC Hall of Fame

    13,510
    1,889
    1,318
    Apr 3, 2007
    I would be curious to know if an underwater dredging machine could (hypothetically, of course) be quietly brought to the base of these islands and undermine them without the inhabitants realizing it until it was too late.
     
  13. carpeveritas

    carpeveritas GC Hall of Fame

    2,529
    3,567
    1,998
    Dec 31, 2016
    Japan has been engaging in island building since 1987. Complaining about China doing the same is a bit hypocritical without recognizing Japan's endeavors.

    It's an old article from the Washington Post (May 20,2016) but it speaks to relevance of island building and why.
    Japan is building tiny islands in the Philippine Sea. Here’s why.

    In April 2016, Japan’s coast guard seized a Taiwanese fishing vessel some 170 miles east of Okinotori, revealing a long-ignored fact: Japan has been engaging in island building to expand its territorial claims since 1987.


    Okinotori is a tiny outcrop about the size of a small bedroom. Much of the islet lies below sea level, even at low tide — and it’s about 950 nautical miles south of Tokyo and 850 nautical miles east of Taipei. So why has the Japanese government reportedly poured $600 million over the past three decades to cultivate coral, erect steel breakwaters and build concrete walls on Okinotori, or “remote bird island,” in the Philippine Sea?

    With global sea levels rising, this might seem a futile effort. But Japan is eyeing the rich fisheries and mineral deposits around the islet, resources that could be worth hundreds of billions of dollars. And there’s a larger strategic claim — Okinotori is situated between the first and second island chain, a position that can deny the Chinese navy access into the Pacific. The islet is also close to sea lanes transporting materials that are vital to Japan’s economy.