The Indian view of the US-China rivalry

Discussion of current events
Jim the Moron
Posts: 1942
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: The Indian view of the US-China rivalry

Post by Jim the Moron » Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:21 am

Sertorio wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:44 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 8:16 pm
"Could Russia side with the US and India against China?"
https://scmp.com/week-asia/politics/art ... inst-china

An article well calculated to trigger heartburn among several of our posters . . .

Is it Vladivostok, or is it tongzhi dongfang, or is it Haishenwei? You pays your money . . .
I don't think that Russia will ever side with anyone against China. But if a lasting partnership could be established between Europe and Russia, it is possible that Russia might decide not to attach itself too closely to China. But for that Europe must first free itself from America and from the poisonous American alliance.

You are no doubt correct that a Russia/China conflict (beyond squabbles over territory) is unlikely. But, referencing the article, Russia would be well advised not to count Europe as an ally in a conflict with China. The US and India would seem more logical as allies.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 4020
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The Indian view of the US-China rivalry

Post by Sertorio » Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:45 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:21 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:44 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 8:16 pm
"Could Russia side with the US and India against China?"
https://scmp.com/week-asia/politics/art ... inst-china

An article well calculated to trigger heartburn among several of our posters . . .

Is it Vladivostok, or is it tongzhi dongfang, or is it Haishenwei? You pays your money . . .
I don't think that Russia will ever side with anyone against China. But if a lasting partnership could be established between Europe and Russia, it is possible that Russia might decide not to attach itself too closely to China. But for that Europe must first free itself from America and from the poisonous American alliance.

You are no doubt correct that a Russia/China conflict (beyond squabbles over territory) is unlikely. But, referencing the article, Russia would be well advised not to count Europe as an ally in a conflict with China. The US and India would seem more logical as allies.
Only after a partnership between Europe and Russia would have been established would Russia count on Europe for anything, particularly in respect of China. But such a partnership is so logical and so beneficial to both parties that it is only a matter of time before it is established. But, of course, Europe must first deal with its American problem. I hope the next POTUS - whoever he is - will make it easier for Europe to get rid of the American alliance.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4279
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The Indian view of the US-China rivalry

Post by cassowary » Sun Aug 30, 2020 7:31 am

neverfail wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 6:01 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:49 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 3:29 am
cassowary wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 1:05 am

All I can say is that Xi is making enemies all over the world.
China may be feared because it is strong and nationalistic. The US is feared because it is unreliable. In the end Asians will prefer a predictable strong power than an unpredictable decadent power...
You obviously don't know Asia. But then again, you don't know Europe either.

There is a de facto alliance between the US, Japan, Taiwan, India and Australia against China. Most Asians welcome the US presence.
I agree with you on the existence of such an informal alliance. I Would however rather think of it as alliance to curb PRC ambition rather than anti-China.

Alas, I believe that in a contest of strength, especially if China is backed by Russia, this geographically discontinuous, diverse alliance of mutual convenience will fail.

The first weak link is Japan - which is loath to dispense with thwe pacifist clause in its national constitution to make its armed forces fit for war again. If Japan were to bite that bullet it would likely alarm the Koreans so much that South Korea would turn against it and who knows what North Korea might do? Possibly even use its nukes.

Second weak link is India: the only alliance member who shares a common terrestial border with the PRC. Just as bad it shares an even more exposed frontier with (also nuclear armed) Pakistan. That must absorb a lot of India's military/diplomatic energy limiting what it can do elsewhere.

Australia is normally most resolute as a US ally but unfortunately beholden to China as our biggest (and most energetic) external trading partner. Which is why we are now a country working at cross-purposes over China - and anything that could push this country into a more beligerant posture is likely to strain it's committment to breaking point. When I think back I realise that over the past century as firstly an ally of Britain and more latterly of the United States it was relatively easy for Australia to be supportive of these kindred but distant allies because there was little cost to us involved. We had -previously traded little with the powers we went to war against - regardless of whether the Central Powers of WW!; the Axis powers of WW2; Korea, Vietnam; Iraq or Afghanistan. But the PRC is different because our econonic wellbeing is so reliant on this country's purchases. So that restrains and dampens our enthusiasm for confronting the dragon.

The USA. Loopy domestic politics make the big power in the alliance hard to predict let alone manage (for we who are trying to talk sense to it). In addition the American public demonstrated their impatience back in the 1960's with governments that get them into long wars that involve sacrifice in distasnt parts; in defence of obscure countries of no obvious value in the defence of the USA itself. They did so with what amounted to a gigantic public mutuny against the Johnson administration and its Vietnam policy.

China's strength is gathered together in one spot (which gives it the perennial tactical advantage) while the alliance membership is diffuse and reactive.

Conclusion = the alliance is potentially a recipe for discord and disappointment.
I think you are too pessimistic Neverfail. Trump talks about getting US factories to return home. But I am sure he knows that many of them need cheap labor. So his tariffs and Sino-US tensions will mean US, Japanese and other factories will go elsewhere - India, Vietnam, Thailand etc.

These factories will need power. So they will still buy Australian coal and iron ore.

In the US, both parties now understand the threat of China. There has been a sea change in perception. Japan is also rearming.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 4020
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The Indian view of the US-China rivalry

Post by Sertorio » Sun Aug 30, 2020 9:31 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 7:31 am

In the US, both parties now understand the threat of China. There has been a sea change in perception. Japan is also rearming.
What is even better is that an increasing number of people in the world now understand the threat of the US. With the exception of Israel and the four Anglo stooges nobody else will trust the US for much longer. Maybe then there will be a chance for a lasting peace in the world.

neverfail
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The Indian view of the US-China rivalry

Post by neverfail » Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:03 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 7:31 am
neverfail wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 6:01 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:49 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 3:29 am
cassowary wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 1:05 am

All I can say is that Xi is making enemies all over the world.
China may be feared because it is strong and nationalistic. The US is feared because it is unreliable. In the end Asians will prefer a predictable strong power than an unpredictable decadent power...
You obviously don't know Asia. But then again, you don't know Europe either.

There is a de facto alliance between the US, Japan, Taiwan, India and Australia against China. Most Asians welcome the US presence.
I agree with you on the existence of such an informal alliance. I Would however rather think of it as alliance to curb PRC ambition rather than anti-China.

Alas, I believe that in a contest of strength, especially if China is backed by Russia, this geographically discontinuous, diverse alliance of mutual convenience will fail.

The first weak link is Japan - which is loath to dispense with thwe pacifist clause in its national constitution to make its armed forces fit for war again. If Japan were to bite that bullet it would likely alarm the Koreans so much that South Korea would turn against it and who knows what North Korea might do? Possibly even use its nukes.

Second weak link is India: the only alliance member who shares a common terrestial border with the PRC. Just as bad it shares an even more exposed frontier with (also nuclear armed) Pakistan. That must absorb a lot of India's military/diplomatic energy limiting what it can do elsewhere.

Australia is normally most resolute as a US ally but unfortunately beholden to China as our biggest (and most energetic) external trading partner. Which is why we are now a country working at cross-purposes over China - and anything that could push this country into a more beligerant posture is likely to strain it's committment to breaking point. When I think back I realise that over the past century as firstly an ally of Britain and more latterly of the United States it was relatively easy for Australia to be supportive of these kindred but distant allies because there was little cost to us involved. We had -previously traded little with the powers we went to war against - regardless of whether the Central Powers of WW!; the Axis powers of WW2; Korea, Vietnam; Iraq or Afghanistan. But the PRC is different because our econonic wellbeing is so reliant on this country's purchases. So that restrains and dampens our enthusiasm for confronting the dragon.

The USA. Loopy domestic politics make the big power in the alliance hard to predict let alone manage (for we who are trying to talk sense to it). In addition the American public demonstrated their impatience back in the 1960's with governments that get them into long wars that involve sacrifice in distasnt parts; in defence of obscure countries of no obvious value in the defence of the USA itself. They did so with what amounted to a gigantic public mutuny against the Johnson administration and its Vietnam policy.

China's strength is gathered together in one spot (which gives it the perennial tactical advantage) while the alliance membership is diffuse and reactive.

Conclusion = the alliance is potentially a recipe for discord and disappointment.
I think you are too pessimistic Neverfail. Trump talks about getting US factories to return home. But I am sure he knows that many of them need cheap labor. So his tariffs and Sino-US tensions will mean US, Japanese and other factories will go elsewhere - India, Vietnam, Thailand etc.

These factories will need power. So they will still buy Australian coal and iron ore.

In the US, both parties now understand the threat of China. There has been a sea change in perception. Japan is also rearming.
You are absolutely right about my pessimism - which I feel is justified by the evolving global situation as I have described it above.

Maybe one of these days India will emerge as a bigger buyer of Australian coal and iron ore but that day has not yet arrived. The existential fact we have to live with now and into the foreseeable future is that we are beholden to the PRC for a significent proportion of our export purchases and as such the PRC is an irreplacable export outlet. With our domestic economy now in a post-coronavirus shutdown slump we need PRC custom more than ever.

(That puts Australia in a historically unprecedented situation. Never before has a potential enemy state been our chief trading partner. Indeed, in the case of the two world wars Britain was then overwhealmingly our number one external trading partner - which must have given our big decision makers of the day a big incentive to go to war in support of our the UK: if only to preserve our number one market abroad indefinitely. Indeed, more than merely preserving our chief trading partner it would have then been universally seen at the time as a bid to preserve civilisation as we know it.)

Meantime the PRC-Russia alliance represents a contiguous continental power bloc towards which the diffuse, motley collection of states scattered around the rim of Asia in this proposed alliance will be operating at a permanent tactical disadvantage in relation to - if it ever comes together.
Last edited by neverfail on Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4279
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The Indian view of the US-China rivalry

Post by cassowary » Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:12 pm

Jim the Moron wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:21 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 1:44 am
Jim the Moron wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 8:16 pm
"Could Russia side with the US and India against China?"
https://scmp.com/week-asia/politics/art ... inst-china

An article well calculated to trigger heartburn among several of our posters . . .

Is it Vladivostok, or is it tongzhi dongfang, or is it Haishenwei? You pays your money . . .
I don't think that Russia will ever side with anyone against China. But if a lasting partnership could be established between Europe and Russia, it is possible that Russia might decide not to attach itself too closely to China. But for that Europe must first free itself from America and from the poisonous American alliance.

You are no doubt correct that a Russia/China conflict (beyond squabbles over territory) is unlikely. But, referencing the article, Russia would be well advised not to count Europe as an ally in a conflict with China. The US and India would seem more logical as allies.
I had long warned about China’s ambitions in the eastern parts of Siberia which they consider as theirs and lost by an unequal treaty. It is a matter of time before Russia patches up with the west to protect its eastern provinces. Then we will hear a different tune from a certain IRA internet troll.

Putin chose to supply India with S400 but suspends delivery to China at a time when India and China had a clash. So Putin chose India over China. The CCP don’t like that and they won’t forget.
The Imp :D

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 4279
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: The Indian view of the US-China rivalry

Post by cassowary » Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:46 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:03 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 7:31 am
neverfail wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 6:01 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 7:49 am
Sertorio wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 3:29 am
cassowary wrote:
Sat Aug 29, 2020 1:05 am

All I can say is that Xi is making enemies all over the world.
China may be feared because it is strong and nationalistic. The US is feared because it is unreliable. In the end Asians will prefer a predictable strong power than an unpredictable decadent power...
You obviously don't know Asia. But then again, you don't know Europe either.

There is a de facto alliance between the US, Japan, Taiwan, India and Australia against China. Most Asians welcome the US presence.
I agree with you on the existence of such an informal alliance. I Would however rather think of it as alliance to curb PRC ambition rather than anti-China.

Alas, I believe that in a contest of strength, especially if China is backed by Russia, this geographically discontinuous, diverse alliance of mutual convenience will fail.

The first weak link is Japan - which is loath to dispense with thwe pacifist clause in its national constitution to make its armed forces fit for war again. If Japan were to bite that bullet it would likely alarm the Koreans so much that South Korea would turn against it and who knows what North Korea might do? Possibly even use its nukes.

Second weak link is India: the only alliance member who shares a common terrestial border with the PRC. Just as bad it shares an even more exposed frontier with (also nuclear armed) Pakistan. That must absorb a lot of India's military/diplomatic energy limiting what it can do elsewhere.

Australia is normally most resolute as a US ally but unfortunately beholden to China as our biggest (and most energetic) external trading partner. Which is why we are now a country working at cross-purposes over China - and anything that could push this country into a more beligerant posture is likely to strain it's committment to breaking point. When I think back I realise that over the past century as firstly an ally of Britain and more latterly of the United States it was relatively easy for Australia to be supportive of these kindred but distant allies because there was little cost to us involved. We had -previously traded little with the powers we went to war against - regardless of whether the Central Powers of WW!; the Axis powers of WW2; Korea, Vietnam; Iraq or Afghanistan. But the PRC is different because our econonic wellbeing is so reliant on this country's purchases. So that restrains and dampens our enthusiasm for confronting the dragon.

The USA. Loopy domestic politics make the big power in the alliance hard to predict let alone manage (for we who are trying to talk sense to it). In addition the American public demonstrated their impatience back in the 1960's with governments that get them into long wars that involve sacrifice in distasnt parts; in defence of obscure countries of no obvious value in the defence of the USA itself. They did so with what amounted to a gigantic public mutuny against the Johnson administration and its Vietnam policy.

China's strength is gathered together in one spot (which gives it the perennial tactical advantage) while the alliance membership is diffuse and reactive.

Conclusion = the alliance is potentially a recipe for discord and disappointment.
I think you are too pessimistic Neverfail. Trump talks about getting US factories to return home. But I am sure he knows that many of them need cheap labor. So his tariffs and Sino-US tensions will mean US, Japanese and other factories will go elsewhere - India, Vietnam, Thailand etc.

These factories will need power. So they will still buy Australian coal and iron ore.

In the US, both parties now understand the threat of China. There has been a sea change in perception. Japan is also rearming.
You are absolutely right about my pessimism - which I feel is justified by the evolving global situation as I have described it above.

Maybe one of these days India will emerge as a bigger buyer of Australian coal and iron ore but that day has not yet arrived. The existential fact we have to live with now and into the foreseeable future is that we are beholden to the PRC for a significent proportion of our export purchases and as such the PRC is an irreplacable export outlet. With our domestic economy now in a post-coronavirus shutdown slump we need PRC custom more than ever.

(That puts Australia in a historically unprecedented situation. Never before has a potential enemy state been our chief trading partner. Indeed, in the case of the two world wars Britain was then overwhealmingly our number one external trading partner - which must have given our big decision makers of the day a big incentive to go to war in support of our the UK: if only to preserve our number one market abroad indefinitely. Indeed, more than merely preserving our chief trading partner it would have then been universally seen at the time as a bid to preserve civilisation as we know it.)

Meantime the PRC-Russia alliance represents a contiguous continental power bloc towards which the diffuse, motley collection of states scattered around the rim of Asia in this proposed alliance will be operating at a permanent tactical disadvantage in relation to - if it ever comes together.
I agree there will be a short term disruption if the US and allies engineer a reorientation of the supply chains. But you got to think long term. So put up with it for the next five years while factories shift out of China to India and elsewhere. This is assuming Trump remains in office to see this through.
The Imp :D

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 4020
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: The Indian view of the US-China rivalry

Post by Sertorio » Sun Aug 30, 2020 10:45 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:12 pm

I had long warned about China’s ambitions in the eastern parts of Siberia which they consider as theirs and lost by an unequal treaty. It is a matter of time before Russia patches up with the west to protect its eastern provinces. Then we will hear a different tune from a certain IRA internet troll.

Putin chose to supply India with S400 but suspends delivery to China at a time when India and China had a clash. So Putin chose India over China. The CCP don’t like that and they won’t forget.
Having given up on the CNN, where do you now get your information? The Disney Channel?...

[IRA? The Irish Republican Army?... :shock: ]

neverfail
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The Indian view of the US-China rivalry

Post by neverfail » Sun Aug 30, 2020 11:46 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:12 pm

I had long warned about China’s ambitions in the eastern parts of Siberia which they consider as theirs and lost by an unequal treaty. It is a matter of time before Russia patches up with the west to protect its eastern provinces. Then we will hear a different tune from a certain IRA internet troll.

Putin chose to supply India with S400 but suspends delivery to China at a time when India and China had a clash. So Putin chose India over China. The CCP don’t like that and they won’t forget.
Putin could do so with impunity as his country is equipped with a thermonuclear arsenal at least as large as that of the USA; more than large enough to obliterate China. Meantime China is reputed to have only about the same number as France. As long as this remains the case the Chinese can whinge and gripe all they want to about "'unequal treaties" and so on but no Russian leader need give China Vladivostok or anything else unless he chooses to.

About Putin's provision of those missiles to India: that would serve two purposes. The first to demonstrate to the Chinese "don't take Russia's friendship for granted". The second is to balance things up a bit better - a lesson Russia must have learned from prior history.

Following the outbreak of war between Japan and China in 1937 Japanese landings swiftly occupied all usable seaports along the China coast thus making it impossible for the Chinese govermnent to import arms by sea. However, the Japanese could not close China's long terrestial border with the USSR and its client state Mongolia and so after 1938 armaments began to flow to Chinag's regime from this source. Along with some Soviet made weaponary Stalin must have permitted weapons ordered from ensewhere to 'flow" theough the USSR to the Chinese government; along with lesser amounts to the Communist rebels and various regional warlords.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... I#Aircraft

The supply vexed the Japanese so much that in 1938 they fought a short, sharp border war against Soviet forces in Mongolia. The Japanese lost: the USSR had better tanks.

However I take note of the fact that most of the arms supplied were made up of relatively "lightweight" weaponary: notably in short supply were advanced aircraft and tanks. What was Stalin's game here? I would suggest to drip-feed enough firepower to the Chinese national army to allow them to remain in the field against Japanese Imperial forces but not enough to allow them to win a clear and decisive victory over their adversary. It suited Stalin to have the two fighting on indefinitely while over in the west his own forces settled scores with Nazi Getrmany.

I get the impression that Putin might be doing a latter-day Josef Stalin on China but without a war.
................................................................................................................................

A Russia-China alliance makes sense. Russia possesses a thermonuclear arsenal to match that of the USA while China now has a national economy whose productive capacity matches that of the USA. Put the two together and you have a power to be reconned with. At this juncture either would be silly to pull out.

neverfail
Posts: 5828
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am
Location: Singapore

Re: The Indian view of the US-China rivalry

Post by neverfail » Mon Aug 31, 2020 12:00 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:46 pm

I agree there will be a short term disruption if the US and allies engineer a reorientation of the supply chains. But you got to think long term. So put up with it for the next five years while factories shift out of China to India and elsewhere. This is assuming Trump remains in office to see this through.
Re-sourcing supply chains is a challenge for the USA but not for us - for there is precious little Australian industry that would require components sourced from China. The sole exception I can think of iare the very cost-effectively priced solar panels we import in bulk for our burgeoning renewables electric power industry - and we would be crazy not to continue buying from this source given both lack of alternative suppliers and the size of our trade surplus with the PRC.

(The impetus of US bad relations with China has now reached the point that even if Biden wins the coming election I believe that it will make no difference. US efforts to disengage from China will continue unabated.)

Post Reply