China to EU: Russian defeat in Ukraine may push US to target Beijing next

[Ajay0]

China told the EU that that a Russian defeat in Ukraine may push US to target Beijing next.

https://www.business-standard.com/world-news/china-fears-us-pivot-if-russia-loses-ukraine-war-eu-talks-125070400230_1.html

Quote

 

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the European Union’s foreign policy chief this week that Beijing does not want to see Russia lose the war in Ukraine, according to a report by the South China Morning Post, citing several people familiar with the matter.

 In what was described as a “tense” four-hour meeting with EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, Wang suggested that a Russian defeat would prompt the United States to reorient its full strategic weight toward China—a scenario Beijing is determined to avoid.

The comments were reportedly delivered in a tone considered blunt and at times “lecturing”, with Wang offering what one official called a “dose of realpolitik” and “lengthy history lessons”.

 

 

[OmniNaut]

This shows how the world operates, doesn't matter if it's US, Europe or China.

These men spread fear because they act from fear, inside they're just small frightened children.

I'm not saying there's no threat, but basically if China is attacked by the US, NATO will have failed, if it has not failed already. Mark Rutte get your ass moving.

 

BTW, why is this not classified as WWIII yet?
Russia is backed by China and North Korea (even sending in troops)
Ukraine is backed by Europe and the US, We have 3 continents involved already, are we waiting for Antarctica to join to call it WWIII ??

Quote

A world war is an international conflict that involves most or all of the world's major powers.

Is it a strategic move to control media and population? Because the line is flexible even Wikipedia is vague.

Edited Monday at 06:18 AM by OmniNaut

[BlueOak]

The world is already at war, its just a cold war with small border conflicts currently.
Both sides are trying to convince everyone that they are right.
Organising chaos in other places wherever they can strike.

If anything, Europe is sitting back too much, but gradually waking up bit by bit.

 

Large build ups in Europe, especially Poland, but also Russian build ups in Leningrad and kaliningrad.

People always go on about the US trying to ignore Europe but at this point its little to do with the US. It suits their narratives more I guess, but lacks any practical understanding of what's actually happening between THESE SIDE BY SIDE STATES.

Also China has stated they are preparing ot invade Taiwan now.

This is all going to happen together: Iran attacks Israel and shipping. China attacks Taiwan and shipping. Russia attacks the Baltics and Finland. Because together they have a shot and nobody's throwing nukes over that strategy, it'll be a conventional war. 

The only uncertainties to me are what happens when Belarus gets nukes, and what happens if Russia decides to nuke Ukraine. Because Belarus is going to be airstriked out of existence, and Putin may get angry enough that he nukes Ukraine. Also where India will stand in it (I guess BRICS economic support against NATO), and if Iran get nukes that'll be very bad in the current climate.

*There is still a chance to avoid this but its not likely now.

Edited Monday at 08:19 PM by BlueOak

[Lyubov]

Nothing new here. It’s been clear for a while now this is somewhat of a proxy war for China. They have been reserved with support through weapons but they will tow a line as to not heavily implicate themselves but also give enough business to Russia in order to keep them from losing. Russia would face a lot more set backs in sanctions were done in coordination with China. Smaller states get crushed in the wake of bigger ones. 

[PurpleTree]

But the economies of let‘s say US, China, Europe, Australia are insanely intertwined no? So a war would be a bit weird.

[Lyubov]

37 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

But the economies of let‘s say US, China, Europe, Australia are insanely intertwined no? So a war would be a bit weird.

They are and it’s why I don’t think it’s likely there will be a total war between east vs west. Politicians are crazy though. I think we are bound to see all sorts of proxy conflicts play out until people wake up and return to diplomacy. 

[Hatfort]

Some US politicians like Marco Rubio have been directly stating that China is the biggest enemy of the US. If Russia had been defeated in this war, NATO would have continued their de facto expansion with Ukraine, Georgia was a work in progress, and who knows what else in the future. It's more difficult with China, because NATO doesn't have such a close proxy like Ukraine, The Philipines would be the closest with already a puppet, and there's interference with Taiwan too. So who knows what they would have been willing to try. 

All countries that were already in cold conflict with the US didn't cut their economic ties with Russia, also because of their own interest, like the mentioned China. 

Anyway, since Russia hasn't lost, this hypothetical scenario is not valid anymore. China and Russia have strengthened their ties, which they have the right to do so, and so have the rest of the BRICS countries.

[PurpleTree]

47 minutes ago, Hatfort said:

Some US politicians like Marco Rubio have been directly stating that China is the biggest enemy of the US. If Russia had been defeated in this war, NATO would have continued their de facto expansion with Ukraine, Georgia was a work in progress, and who knows what else in the future. It's more difficult with China, because NATO doesn't have such a close proxy like Ukraine, The Philipines would be the closest with already a puppet, and there's interference with Taiwan too. So who knows what they would have been willing to try. 

All countries that were already in cold conflict with the US didn't cut their economic ties with Russia, also because of their own interest, like the mentioned China. 

Anyway, since Russia hasn't lost, this hypothetical scenario is not valid anymore. China and Russia have strengthened their ties, which they have the right to do so, and so have the rest of the BRICS countries.

And while Marco Rubio is saying such things. The US govt is putting all those tariffs on their allies. Great strategy.

[Hatfort]

6 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

And while Marco Rubio is saying such things. The US govt is putting all those tariffs on their allies. Great strategy.

Yeah, it's crazy, Trump is stretching their historical and current allies. If they find themselves in need, they may have to knock on China's door in the end. They want Europe to spend its coin on US weapons and military industry 5% of their budget, and also to have them energetically dependent.

European leadership is sold or they are stupid, because they are conceding so much. Germany should be a case of study, because Biden directly stated that the Nord Stream would end, and Trump also took credit for that, and in fact happened, but they still kiss the ring. Ursula Von Der Leyen with Trump was pitiful to see last week. 

[zazen]

@PurpleTree @Hatfort Countries without their own security aren’t truly sovereign - unfortunately Europe outsourced much of it to the US. Which is why many view it as a vassal - Trump simply enjoys mocking this relationship for his own ego.

Look at them laughing at Rutte’s “daddy” comment. Rubio in the back cracking up 😂

Shit gets worse. How embarrassing. Fully bent over, vaselined and vassalized.

Jeffrey Sachs on Taiwan:

On China and EU:

George Galloway on UK yapping about going to war over Taiwan:

We got cheese and steak in security boxes here in London grocery stores, homelessness on the streets, and public services shrinking and shaking under pressure. But we gone fight a manufacturing technological mammoth all the way across the world and in their own sea where the have supply line advantage 😂 hold my fucking beer mate!

Just like with Russia-Ukraine. The US has little to no weapons, the EU has little to no money, and Ukraine has not enough manpower. But we’re supposed to believe this is a deal of the century between the EU and US.

Edited Monday at 08:40 PM by zazen

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

There will never be another world war in the classic WW2 sense, as there will never be enough political capital for it in any major country, the world has changed too much. We can already see that WW2 tactics no longer work and we're shifting to a completely different style of warfare based on example of war in Ukraine, so why try to predict future in general based on skewed lenses of the past

[PurpleTree]

12 minutes ago, zazen said:

@PurpleTree @Hatfort Countries without their own security aren’t truly sovereign - unfortunately Europe outsourced much of it to the US. Which is why many view it as a vassal - Trump simply enjoys mocking this relationship for his own ego.

Look at them laughing at Rutte’s “daddy” comment. Rubio in the back cracking up 😂

Shit gets worse. How embarrassing. Fully bent over, vaselined and vassalized.

Jeffrey Sachs on Taiwan:

On China and EU:

George Galloway on UK yapping about going to war over Taiwan:

We got cheese and steak in security boxes here in London grocery stores, homelessness on the streets, and public services shrinking and shaking under pressure. But we gone fight a manufacturing technological mammoth all the way across the world and in their own sea where the have supply line advantage 😂 hold my fucking beer mate!

Just like with Russia-Ukraine. The US has now little to no weapons, the EU has little to no money, and Ukraine has not enough manpower. But weaker supposed to believe this is a deal of the century between the EU and US.

I‘m not a fan of Germany at all. But to be fair they were carpet bombed, humiliated and beaten into submission in WW2 so they never really had their own security after that. Britain kind of outsourced its stuff willingly which is cray. France is basically our only hope lol

[BlueOak]

11 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

There will never be another world war in the classic WW2 sense, as there will never be enough political capital for it in any major country, the world has changed too much. We can already see that WW2 tactics no longer work and we're shifting to a completely different style of warfare based on example of war in Ukraine, so why try to predict future in general based on skewed lenses of the past

Patterns repeat and are updated.

Rarely does anything come into my experience that isn't part of an easily identifiable repeating pattern, so when it does, it's huge news.

At the moment, the pattern is - Cold War with military build-ups. Bad economic situation. Far-right individuals or parties run most of the military powers. Rising fascist and nationalist themes within the population, demonization of the 'other' throughout it. Changing global dynamics leading to unstable geopolitical situations. China and India are rising, Russia and America are falling, etc. New weapons of war (drones) are changing the balance of power and giving other states ideas, as well as a general lowering the casus belli or justification, for wars.  The usual response is war for resources, distraction, land, and influence.

This is the pattern that has been repeated for thousands of years. Its just dressed up differently.

There are off-ramps but in our current scenario, it requires something like the global superpowers sitting down and telling the world how the new order of things will now be, and then enforcing it. Even if this is done at arms length. That is China reigning in Russia, America reigning in Israel (another reason that war exists), and both powers mapping out how things will now work globally. BRICS and NATO competing does not lead to this outcome; it leads to conflict and war.

Essentially a peace could be negotiated now without a hot war.

Edited Monday at 08:48 PM by BlueOak

[Basman]

May? I don't think it is hyperbolic to say that the US is much more concerned with China than Russia. China is much closer to being a peer-to-peer competitor militarily. If I'm not mistaken, much of the US military is being geared towards an amphibious war in the pacific. I believe Task & Purpose on Youtube has a bunch of videos on it. 

If anything, Ukraine is kind of a distraction for the US. China is probably right in wanting to prevent a Russian loss if they want to prevent America's full attention towards fighting them.

42 minutes ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

There will never be another world war in the classic WW2 sense, as there will never be enough political capital for it in any major country, the world has changed too much. We can already see that WW2 tactics no longer work and we're shifting to a completely different style of warfare based on example of war in Ukraine, so why try to predict future in general based on skewed lenses of the past

It is human nature to apply old models when trying to make sense of the world. If they are true it is business as usual. If they are wrong, then you ponder.

[Basman]

As far as I understand, it is not so much about starting a war with China, but drawing a figurative line in the sand. That includes having the plans and the material ready to win a fight if need be. If not, Chinese interests will supersede American interests in the Pacific, which will likely be destabilizing for the security of American allies in the region, especially Taiwan. America needs Taiwan for their computer chips. It is also about upholding American hegemony and a commitment to democracy and capitalism, though I'm less sure of that with Trump behind the wheel. Don't quote me on that.

Edited Monday at 09:33 PM by Basman

[PurpleTree]

4 minutes ago, Basman said:

As far as I understand, it is not so much about starting a war with China, but drawing a figurative line in the sand. That includes having the plans and the material ready to win a fight if need be. If not, Chinese interests will supersede American interests in the Pacific, which will likely be destabilizing for the security of American allies in the region, especially Taiwan. America needs Taiwan for their computer chips. It is also about upholding American hegemony and a commitment to democracy and capitalism, though I'm less sure of that with Trump behind the wheel. Don't quote me on that.

That’s hogwash. The US always supported (rightwing) dictatoships and regime changed democratically elected governments who didn’t suit them. Also Saudi and Qatar etc. are close allies.

[zazen]

1 hour ago, NewKidOnTheBlock said:

There will never be another world war in the classic WW2 sense, as there will never be enough political capital for it in any major country, the world has changed too much. We can already see that WW2 tactics no longer work and we're shifting to a completely different style of warfare based on example of war in Ukraine, so why try to predict future in general based on skewed lenses of the past

I don’t think the major powers want war with each other - far too much risk today. The Thucydides trap in which majority of rising powers went to war the hegemon of the time is the model being projected onto today - but today we have nuclear deterrence and are economically integrated / globalised.

But then again, we are in the economic de-coupling phase to ensure dependencies don’t exist - which means being more resilient for a potential war if it were to happen or if it’s desired. One aspect is simply to contain China’s rise, the other is to have war as a possible option on the table.

Empire logic isn’t simply after profit but primacy. So even if we live in a bi-polar world where both sides (West vs East) are self reliant and gain abundance through tech advancements and AI - that doesn’t stop the imperial minded to want to be number 1 and bring down the peer competitor.

Maybe nuclear isn’t enough of a deterrence either (India-Pakistan recently happened). Certain powers can be crazy enough to think war will remain conventional and thar the other side wouldn’t dare touch the nukes. Like in a street fight where both parties throw the guns away to fist fight lol

Victor Gao brings up the old lens (as you mention) being used for today at 20 min here:

Far right nationalism of today is also different to that of the past. The past was expansionist nationalism, today’s is more isolationist. Previous nationalism wanted to expand imperially and conquer land due to no fixed borders + lack of international law framework. Today’s nationalism wants to actually protect itself from being hollowed out and swallowed by globalisation. 

That doesn’t mean there isn’t going to be flashpoints and friction, just that total war like the old days is unlikely - friction but not really a fracture. The great powers will exhaust every other avenue (trade, tech, cyber and propaganda warfare) before going for it kinetically, if they ever even do. 

Edited Monday at 10:03 PM by zazen

[Raze]

The US would never directly go to war with China outright, they’d probably more likely try to bring out anti China governments in nearby countries and trigger China into entering long proxy wars of attrition, or try to damage chinas economy and fund rebel groups inside China to create internal violence.

[PurpleTree]

13 minutes ago, zazen said:

I don’t think the major powers want war with each other - far too much risk today. The Thucydides trap in which majority of rising powers went to war the hegemon of the time is the model being projected onto today - but today we have nuclear deterrence and are economically integrated / globalised.

But then again, we are in the economic de-coupling phase to ensure dependencies don’t exist - which means being more resilient for a potential war if it were to happen or if it’s desired. One aspect is simply to contain China’s rise, the other is to have war as a possible option on the table.

Empire logic isn’t simply after profit but primacy. So even if we live in a bi-polar world where both sides (West vs East) are self reliant and gain abundance through tech advancements and AI - that doesn’t stop the imperial minded to want to be number 1 and bring down the peer competitor.

Maybe nuclear isn’t enough of a deterrence either (India-Pakistan recently happened). Certain powers can be crazy enough to think war will remain conventional and thar the other side wouldn’t dare touch the nukes. Like in a street fight where both parties throw the guns away to fist fight lol

Victor Gao brings up the old lens (as you mention) being used for today at 20 min here:

Far right nationalism of today is also different to that of the past. The past was expansionist nationalism, today’s is more isolationist. Previous nationalism wanted to expand imperially and conquer land due to no fixed borders + international law framework. Today’s wants to actually protect itself from being hollowed out and sealed by globalisation. 
 

That doesn’t mean there isn’t going to be flashpoints and friction, just that total war like the old days is highly unlikely. The great powers will exhaust every other avenue (trade, tech, cyber and propaganda warfare) before going for it kinetically, if they ever even do. 

This guy seems like a propaganda channel. Look at his titles smh

[zazen]

39 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

This guy seems like a propaganda channel. Look at his titles smh

Yeah and the thumbnails haha so cringe. But he’s got some good interviews like with Alastair Crook and this Victor Gao’s a straight talker from China who was on chanel 4 etc. Hate what social media and algorithm whoring has done.

I think many commentators are valid for appreciating China and what it’s done, but they gotta be careful not get into glazing mode - it can definitely look like that.

China actually has a crappy geography (scarce water and arable land) that makes it vulnerable, with an enormous  population to feed and keep stable - yet it’s done very well despite that.  Meanwhile the US is geographically blessed and with a much smaller population to feed and maintain in comparison.

China has already surpassed the US in PPP terms (purchasing power parity) and will surpass it in nominal GDP (dollar terms) in the coming years. That shows us that China is competent in overcoming challenges and constraints - that it’s an enduring civilization and had an aberration of weakness in its 5’000 year history. Now a 250 year old baby country is trying dictate to it and slow it down. How audacious.

Ngl though wish Europe had some more dynamism - I hope it doesn’t get left behind US and China, but then again Europes charm is its old world feel and slower pace.