- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 88 Hour
- Reading permission
Originally posted by wwinterrain at 2008-6-3 14:43
Why should there be a lack of informed opinions? It will seem rediculous
to me especially for leaders, govt.,CIA,military, academia, journalist
and others who are educated and well read, to claim lack of informed
opinions as a basis to their anti-China stance.
I thought we were talking about Americans in general. Certainly most Americans are not very informed on China and indeed many of those you mention will not be well informed on China. On some level it is because bad information is frequently passed along. Case in point are some of the rather fallacious accusations about Tibet. There are people who still cite the 1 million casualty figure, which even supporters of Tibetan independence acknowledge is complete hogwash. That's because there are people who frequently report this figure and either aren't aware it's questioned or only see it being questioned by people biased towards China's government. On many issues I think you'll find this is the case.
There's also a general lack of knowledge about China's system as a whole. That's because many in the West are under the impression China is a centralized totalitarian state, partly because of that old anti-commie bias.
When you find constant reports citing little more than numerical figures without providing context it's only natural people will misinterpret.
Why would a country half way across the globe with the most formidable
military arsenal have to fear when free nations across the globe and
nearby,which is but an ant compared to USA look favourable upon
China with no fear whatsoever.Surely it is not because they are better
informed than the Americans.
There are plenty of people in the U.S. who don't harbor unrealistic fears of China. Even the current U.S. government views China as a strategic competitor more than an enemy. Criticism of China's government, however, is highly common in "free" nations like in Europe, Japan, Korea, Canada, and so forth. Those nations nearest China, however, also have a greater understanding of China on a personal level, something most Americans don't have.
Americans are unable to live in peace. culturally they are
unable to understand that there are alternatives to their myopic view
where in a jungle pyramid, you need to be at the apex or end up being
a prey to those higher up.
You shouldn't lump all Americans into that group, I'm not of that view and I know many other Americans who are not. Most are quite practical.
China's foreign policy is based on mutual respect of sovereignty and
territorial integrity and non-intervention in the internal affairs
of other nations.
That used to be American policy too, unfortunately we abandoned it some time ago.
In the east European arena, what you mentioned is far from what
it was during the days of the USSR.
The Soviets never really used their massive energy power in that time, though. By using energy Russia can gain more leverage over Europe than the Soviet Union.
To keep it short, I find that
the Russian is the victim of western aggression and not the other way
Certainly for the time being this is true, but I don't think threatening the existence of a nation for choosing to join an organization like NATO makes them look like the innocent victim. Russia has a very a domineering attitude, moreso than the U.S. For instance, on the missile defense program Russia's offer for cooperation basically had most of the missile defense system being based in Russia with its command in Russia and what wasn't in Russia near Russia. They wouldn't even consider accommodating any of the system being in Eastern Europe. I'm certain to the U.S. officials involved it looked a lot like Russia was demanding control of the missile defense system, not cooperation.
All things considered, it seems quite clear to me that presently it is
the Russian more than US or Japan that cherish the friendship of China.
Yeah, a lot of Americans really don't understand that China is a much better friend than some of the other nations we associate with. However, I think it's only a matter of time before Russia's relationship with China sours. Russia has had no qualms stepping on the feet of their closest allies when they don't tow the line, like with Belarus for instance. There's also some amount of fear about China, particularly fears about Chinese immigrating to Far Eastern Russia. Russia's government has deported Georgians who, while relations between the two nations are sour, generally as a people are much closer to Russians than the Chinese. It is only because of the relationship between Russia and China presently that Chinese aren't being deported from Russia.
Originally posted by aleksei at 2008-6-8 06:27
Can you tell me (i'm Russian) WHAT FOR we need ANY kind of aggression on this direction?
It's not really a matter of need, it rarely is. All empire-building stems from a desire for security. Russia's economic security requires Europe to continue consuming its energy, which means they can't be getting energy from other nations. That either means those nations which would supply them energy have to somehow be made to work with Russia or Russia has to dominate that nation's energy or control the routes needed to supply that energy.
You can spread your wishful thinking "China and Russia are enemies", etc., but better use your time more effectively.
It's not wishful thinking. I'm just being realistic.
Originally posted by aleksei at 2008-6-8 07:20
First of all you're saying "Russia becomes more confrontational" assuming this is the same for China and US are same country.
You'd see I was specifically referring to the U.S. if you looked harder. My point was that Americans fears will shift away from China. Also consider what happens when problems with North Korea and problems over Taiwan are resolved. The U.S. won't have much reason to keep its forces in the area and with problem popping up elsewhere in the world it's likely we'll move out of East Asia, thus removing another problem between the U.S. and China.
And... can you tell what kind of neo-colonialism is here?
Typically when we talk neo-colonialism it refers to the dominance of certain corporations. Certainly Gazprom taking over Serbia's state-run energy company has some element of that neo-colonialism.
This is just perfect sample of american's lie.[quote]
How is it a lie? Russian officials have threatened Georgia and Ukraine over the possibility of NATO membership. With Georgia specifically they've threatened to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the comments from those regions and Russia strongly suggest or even outright state the end result will be their incorporation into Russia.
[quote]Man... can you just look to the world map? Do you know where Abkhazia is situated?
Then tell me, what "limiting routing options" for Europe can be related to Abkhazia? :)
Abkhazia is most of Georgia's Black Sea coast. Granted, Georgia isn't really using it, but annexing Abkhazia would allow Russia to permanently deny that coastal area to Georgia. By taking Ukraine's black sea coast would also eliminate one key destination for such supplies and provide Russia a very nice little route of their own leading directly to Southeastern Europe completely under their control.
[quote]And, by the way, isn't it funny, to place Ukraina and Georgia as samples or "Russia imperialism" after US fund revolts there? :)[quote]
I'm not sure what your point is. Does that somehow make it OK to carve them up?
[quote]...anyway, "colonization" of China (population of 1000 000 000) with 100 000 000 Russians is definitely above my imagination.[quote]
I wasn't suggesting something so bold. Russia has very strong ties with India and former Soviet states in Central Asia. They're expanding their ties throughout the region. I don't think China would take kindly to Russia trying to boss them around while at the same time expanding its footprint in China's neighbors, including some with a history of hostility towards China.