"China says it has ‘no intention’ of joining arms talks with" Topic

…US and Russia.

"China on Wednesday said it had "no intention to participate" in trilateral arms control negotiations, a day after Washington called on Beijing to join its nuclear arms talks with Moscow.

The United States has held two rounds of talks with Russia, aimed at reducing misunderstandings around critical security issues since the collapse of a Cold War nuclear pact last year, which triggered fears of a new arms race.

Washington has hinted that Beijing should also join the discussions…"
Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

Basic diplomacy would suggest that the US should play its two rivals off with one another. If theChinese don't want to play ball, it means a degree of understanding and co operation between the other two.

This can not be good for the Chinese.

Apparently in the 1990s the Chinese and Russians developed this concept of zones/spheres of influence and both have largely respected each other's sphere..

Both have mire to gain by a weakening US than they do from antagonising eeach other – for the time being of course.

Of course. Effective diplomacy would start working on wedge points. One power, refusing to attend a conference, seems a possibility.

I'm sure I don't have to spell out to you times when the USSR and the People's Republic did fall out?

Yes but the USSR is a different kettle of fish to Russia and the Chinese no longer see US involvement in the Asia Pacific region as a counter to Soviet expansion. PRC is also significantly different now that Maoism is no longer the goal. Both sides have more in common than they do with America.

The Russians will never bow to the Americans. It doesn't suit Putin nor have the Americans done anything to endear themselves to the Russians since 1991.

In fact the Americans are still more an obvious and more overt threat to Russia (expansion of NATO, basing of NATO forces in eastern Europe, expansion of EU/NATO into countries Russia regards as buffer states and missile defense system based in Eastern Europe as well as US sanctions).

Pointless arms talks no one will adhere to are not a bonus points point for America especially wben the IRBMTreaty is dead and both sides are planning recapitalization of nuclear caps iliyids including Russia multiple megaton tsunami causing dirty bomb torpedo drones whose main targets will be US cities.

In what way are clone like Russia and the USSR dissimilar? Indeed, there's virtually no difference between Peter the Greats policies and Putins and everything in between.

I fear you do not see how diplomacy can be practiced. Pointless is grist for the mill, whilst wedging is a perennial tactic. I must admit that I've never seen the words endear and diplomacy appear in the same sentence…paragraph…or entire paper.

That is good news, since fools won't be suckered by any of their lies.

"In fact the Americans are still more an obvious and more overt threat to Russia…..".

Thanks for the laugh today. I needed that.

Yep, Thresher01, got me chuckling too.

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Thresher SBminisguy, just cause you don't understand the situation, doesn't mean its not true.

In what way are clone like Russia and the USSR dissimilar? Indeed, there's virtually no difference between Peter the Greats policies and Putins and everything in between.

No disputing this. Security is the overriding Russian national obsession and has been as you said from Peter the Great.

The difference is the USSR was far more powerful and militarily far more capable than Russia today. The USSR in the 1960s was largely comfortable in its security outlook with its Warpac buffer belt (and when states in the buffer belt opposed it, they simply sent in the Red Army ala Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968). Its nuclear deterrence guaranteed overall international security.

Modern Russia is not in a safe, comfortable position. NATO has expanded to include former Warpac buffer states and ex Soviet republics (the Baltics). NATO/EU engagement with Ukraine and to lesser degree Georgia is seen by the Kremlin as a direct threat to Russian security and basically a dagger pointed to the soft underbelly of Russia and destroying Russian strategic superiority in the Black Sea. The US missile defence shield is seen as directed against the Russians and the Russians fear losing their deterrence capability.*

*Segue: ironic the Americans said the missile defence system was to stop rogue states ala Iran, yet the Iranians have been lobbing missiles at will, whilst those anti-ballistic missiles systems in Romania sit idle. Guess the Russians are right in assuming the missile defence shield's primary purpose is reducing Russian deterrence capabilities.

Anyhow…

Sino-Russian relationships have vastly improved since 1991. The 1991 Sino-Soviet Border Agreement solved the border disputes and China and Russia have developed close relations in military cooperation (including mass exercises) weapons trade and economics.

The Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation is seen as an implicit defence pact between the two countries. And just last year there was discussions about linkages with the Russian led Eurasian Economic Union with China's Belt & Road Initiative

And so far they have been respecting each other's zone/sphere of influence.

I fear you do not see how diplomacy can be practiced.

Russia has nothing to be gained from undermining its relationship with China. The Russians aren't idiots. And the Americans have been shown to be hostile to Russian interests (eg Ukraine).

Do you seriously think the Americans stand a chance of putting a wedge between Russia and China given the American behaviour over the last 30 years?

If the Americans practised greater subtlety and occasional restraint, then they might stand a chance diplomatically.

arealdeadone, you say a lot of things that make sense. I only wish that America would make friends with Russia. It's hard to do in the current anti-Russia media environment. Russia is a large country with natural resources that need further development and could be a good trading partner with the US. The former USSR wanted to export its communism (not good), but modern Russia is made up of oligarchs who want to do business; big difference. Capitalism is much better than communism. Putin may be an old communist, but he is really just a nationalist. I'd love to see Russia, China, and the US sitting at the table together. But I'm afraid it is really only China who knows how to play the long game.

USAFPilot,

I agree with everything you say but it's not going to happen. And the issue is one in the making since 1991.

I read a book a while back that stated that instead of sitting back and gloating when the USSR collapsed, the Americans should have implemented a Marshall Plan for eastern Europe including Russia.

Instead the Russians collapsed, felt humiliated and NATO began its current course of expansion and missile defence more than 20 years ago.

The Russians of course aren't blameless, but I think the west missed a golden opportunity in the 1990s.

Also from what I've read Kosovo, Iraq and most recently Libya and regime change in the latter two have apparently influenced Russian thinking heavily and have given the Russians the impression Americans are not to be trusted. This influenced their intervention in Syria where they did not want to see an old ally toppled by US sponsored forces.

I also think the Americans and Russians need each other as enemies. It helps drive and reinforce both international and domestic policies of both countries. It's very 1984-esque in nature.

If the Americans practised greater subtlety and occasional restraint, then they might stand a chance diplomatically.

This, my friend, is the most intelligent thing you've ever written.

American diplomacy has a chequered history but I don't think it's beyond them to work a situation to their advantage. That is, after all, the whole point about international diplomacy.

I can give you a few links to excellent books if you want to develop your understanding.

. I only wish that America would make friends with Russia

Really? Back in Lewis, we had a saying,

"I'f ye sup wi' the de'il, mak sure ye have a lang spoon".

The Russians of course aren't blameless, but I think the west missed a golden opportunity in the 1990s

arealdeadone, I remember when "the wall" came down. There was a real potential for a bright future for the world. It was a brief period, then that a$$hole Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990 and distracted the west for the next decade. I real missed opportunity with Russia. And it's been a mess in the Middle East ever since. Should never have invaded Iraq. What we and the Europeans did in Libya was just disgusting. I would like to see the US pull all its troops out of the Middle East (the US is now energy independent) and also pull out of NATO (USSR is dead and the Cold War is over).

American diplomacy has a chequered history but I don't think it's beyond them to work a situation to their advantage. That is, after all, the whole point about international diplomacy.

No doubt. But I don't think the current climate with the Russians favours any diplomatic process especially given the amount of American barking against them (this started with Obama so I am not sledging Trump).

distracted the west for the next decade

I think it suited the west for Russia to collapse. I don't think western governments expected Russia to ever climb out of the mess. From what I have read this was viewed as a good thing – a Russia driven to a toothless beggar state was seen as the optimum solution to the Russian problem.

Putin did wonders. If it wasn't for him, I suspect Russia would now be not to dissimilar to Ukraine or Belarus in terms of dysfunction. In fact the Russians might have been even worse given agitated minorities in Chechnya, Dagestan and else as well as economic collapse. We could have been dealing with further collapse of Russia ala 1917-22 and a race to secure several thousand errant nukes as well as a Chinese land grab for huge chunks of resource rich Siberia.

link

arealdeadone, I think it suited the west for the Soviet Union to collapse. I draw a distinction with Russia and Russians. Russia is a great country with large territory containing vast amounts of natural resources that we could help develop and become good trading partners. You mention Chechnya; it was shameful how the west viewed that war; we should have been helping the Russians and not constantly criticizing them in their fight against radical elements. As much as I abhorred the Soviet Union which gave the world nothing but the horrors of communism; I admire Russia for giving the world truly great authors and composers. Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, and so many others. It is far past time the the US and Russia become good friends. I blame the highly biased and partisan press for propagating bad relations between the two,

"NATO has expanded to include former Warpac buffer states and ex Soviet republics (the Baltics). NATO/EU engagement with Ukraine and to lesser degree Georgia is seen by the Kremlin as a direct threat to Russian security and basically a dagger pointed to the soft underbelly of Russia and destroying Russian strategic superiority in the Black Sea".

NATO hasn't expanded unilaterally, and to be fair, the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Afghanistan before the USA did.

Former communist satellites have asked to join NATO to get out from under the communist/Soviet/Russian jackboot, since they did not like how they were treated previously by the Soviet regimes, and don't trust Putin.

NATO has not, and is not seeking conquest of Russia, and is now really a paper tiger of its once decent military force, incapable of even defending itself without the aid of the USA.

The USA could have invaded the USSR at the end of WWII, could have nuked it off the globe during post-WWII, etc., etc.. America and her allies even aided the Russians during WWII, to fight the Nazis, but the Soviet/Russians don't ever seem to acknowledge, and/or appreciate that.

It is really Soviet-style, Russian belligerence that is the cause of a lot of the problems in the region, as evidenced by their seizure of various countries during the Cold War, occupation of those and others, and attacks on others, like Georgia, Ukraine, and Crimea (and the current occupation of the latter). Not to mention ALL those provocative strategic bomber and fighter air sorties against various European countries, and the USA.

The Russians are their own worst enemy to themselves, even after repeated peace offerings made by the USA and Europe/NATO.

"*Segue: ironic the Americans said the missile defence system was to stop rogue states ala Iran, yet the Iranians have been lobbing missiles at will, whilst those anti-ballistic missiles systems in Romania sit idle".

Apparently, you don't know your geography well, or how anti-missile defenses work.

Those interceptors in Roumania are/were poorly positioned to take out the ballistic missiles fired by the Iranians against US troops, and are needed for more dire threats, like those tipped with a nuclear warhead, dirty bomb, or other strategic payloads (chem and bio weapons).

The best outcome for the free countries of the world is that none of the three behemoths become paramount. Whilst they're chest thumping and scrambling for advantage (short of all out war)' the rest of us have a chance for freedom and independence.

Obviously the US is the better of the three but there's a great deal of similarity too.

Thresher, no arguments about Russia's behaviour. But take into account the Russian perspective which is many invasions from the west – Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, French, German, western interference in Civil War, Polish invasion of Kiev which was Russian at the time. Now it is NATO expansion and missile defense.

As Ochoin pointed out Russian strategy had not changed in hundreds of years. And unlike you Americans their historical perspectives are different and far longer.

You are wrong anout Amerixan peace offerings – there have been none. The Americans relished Russian weakness post 1991. The Europeans aren't so anti Russian so gladly buy their oil and gas from them and don't bother increasing defence spending.

And I get the geography re Romania, my post was ironic. US Missile Defense main purpose in Europe is to neuter Russian deterrence capabilities, not defend from rogue states ala Iran.

I suspect as a Yank you think every thing your country does is noble when it engages in typical great power behaviour which is not guided by morality in any way.

You are wrong anout Amerixan peace offerings – there have been none. The Americans relished Russian weakness post 1991.

I think our current President would like good relations with Russia, but our very biased and highly partisan press like to propagate bad relations with Russia.

I suspect as a Yank you think every thing your country does is noble when it engages in typical great power behaviour which is not guided by morality in any way.

Hits nail on head.

The difference, when it exists, is public opinion, which can have a moral component, has some clout in the US as opposed to the other two.

I think that may only apply to public opinion in the west. Publics in other parts of the world probably have a very different opinion of the US. Indeed Serbs I know view the USA as number 1 global bad guy for obvious reasons.

Indeed Serbs I know view the USA as number 1 global bad guy for obvious reasons.

Possibly but the US earned some kudos for their actions aimed at curtailing of genocide and punishing war crimes during the Yugoslav Wars. I know Croatians and many Bosnians, in general, are quite fond of Americans for the actions that may have lost them some Serbian fans.

This just shows that the US can be quite Spiderman-like in their foreign policy ("with great power there must also come great responsibility"). It is sad that sometimes the US chooses unsavoury allies such as the Saudis, Bahrain, Cambodia et al.
Working with Russia & having friendly relations is the ideal, to a point. But being friends with Russia? Really? I am encouraged by USAFpilot's assertion that the American press can see the moral quagmire that such a policy lies therein and opposes it.

As a side note, could you see such an allegedly

very biased and highly partisan press

being tolerated in Russia?