Not sure if it's a win. The vast resources in Russia will now be channeled into China (and India). If you're an American strategist, a China with Russia's resources should be giving you serious jitters.
Eh not really. It’s a supreme oversimplification of global economics. If China starts buying more oil and gas from Russia then it stops buying as much from the Middle East. America is I believe now the largest producer of at least some oil and gas products. The market is global.
Also, while Russia is or would be happy to sell resources to China to fund the lifestyles of extremely wealthy dictators and murderers, Russia (the State) will always view China with some amount of healthy suspicion for geopolitical reasons.
The fear you’re alluding to came and went with Cold War and the destruction of the Soviet Empire.
This is all true, and yet ignores the price of production and transportation. Once the various Power Of Siberia pipelines are all complete, China may be getting gas cheaper than any price Europe can get.
As for Russia viewing China with suspicion... that's true of the West too, and yet it has been piping gas and oil to Germany since the 1960s.
> As for Russia viewing China with suspicion... that's true of the West too, and yet it has been piping gas and oil to Germany since the 1960s.
The point wasn’t that Russia doesn’t engage with other countries, it’s that Russia won’t engage too closely with China so there isn’t as much for American strategists to worry about there. Not to mention China is economically dependent on the U.S., EU, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and other western-aligned nations. Vacationing in Nice is way more fun than vacationing in Siberia. The Russian economy is an afterthought and that was before sanctions.
> This is all true, and yet ignores the price of production and transportation. Once the various Power Of Siberia pipelines are all complete, China may be getting gas cheaper than any price Europe can get.
Sure… but there’s a few things here:
1) alternative energy sources become more and more economically viable so they get built in Europe - oil/nat gas producers don’t want too much of this happening if they can avoid it
2) the market is global, so increase in purchases from Russia means decreases in purchases from other countries - if your demand is 100 barrels and you buy 50 from Saudi Arabia and 50 from Russia and then you buy 60 from Russia instead and buy 40 from Saudi Arabia the excess supply of 10 barrels has to get sold somewhere, and potentially at a lower price (remember when the spot price of oil went negative? [1])
3) OPEC (at least pre-war) has some “say” in setting the global price for oil
4) there are different types of oil for different uses so a new pipeline is just one piece of the supply puzzle
The dependence between China and the West works both ways, and yet look what is happening. Regardless of the reasoning why it should not, the direction is clear, and it won't be the first time that economies have been terribly damaged due to security concerns. We'll just have to leave this one to the history books.
Much of the rest you write is true, but once again we come to production and transportation costs. If the price of extraction and transportation drops below a profitable level over the long term, production will drop. If Russia can extract and transport gas at a lower energy cost than any other producer can do the same for Europe, Europe will have an increased disadvantage in manufacturing until sufficiently cheap alternatives are built. You're certainly aware of this, so I'm not even clear what we're debating here.
> The dependence between China and the West works both ways, and yet look what is happening.
Yes it does, but the economies of the West are so far and beyond Russia that China is not at least publicly taking a strong pro-Russia stance.
> Regardless of the reasoning why it should not, the direction is clear, and it won't be the first time that economies have been terribly damaged due to security concerns. We'll just have to leave this one to the history books.
I'm not exactly sure what you are talking about here. Would you care to elaborate? For example, I wouldn't say any direction is clear. History and humanity is far too crazy and unpredictable for that. But if I had to take a stab I'd say the direction that's clear here is that the West and its diplomatic resolve was far stronger than China or Russia anticipated, and China would prefer to stay in salvageable graces with the West than to meaningfully assist Russia - if anything it seeks to take advantage of Russia's weakened position.
> Much of the rest you write is true, but once again we come to production and transportation costs. If the price of extraction and transportation drops below a profitable level over the long term, production will drop. If Russia can extract and transport gas at a lower energy cost than any other producer can do the same for Europe, Europe will have an increased disadvantage in manufacturing until sufficiently cheap alternatives are built. You're certainly aware of this, so I'm not even clear what we're debating here.
Idk either because I was mostly responding to your specific comment regarding American strategists "being concerned" as you noted. I noted that European countries can bring online alternative energy sources, and that the energy market is more global (oil and gas specifically) so China buying Russian gas wasn't as big of a deal to American strategists as you implied.
I'm not sure the relevancy here of production and transportation costs specifically and even more specifically without specific analysis. As I noted previously, there are different grades of oil, for example. Just because a pipeline comes online doesn't mean that all of a sudden China has cheap oil and nobody else does, particularly because all they are doing is replacing suppliers in some instances and not in other instances. In the case where they are replacing suppliers those suppliers either have to take production offline, or they have to sell elsewhere. If China's demand is 100 barrels and they get 50 from Russia and 50 from Saudi Arabia and then they now get 60 from Russia and 40 from Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia is still going to sell those 10 barrels (now available on the market) or lower supply to protect prices. Again this is also an oversimplification! Nobody has provided anything other than armchair economics.
You're trying to vastly simplify the global energy and oil and gas markets to make a point, but I'm largely rejecting that point for the reasons stated previously and also here.
China is getting those resources regardless. It's just a negotiation on price, which Russia is having to sell lower than normal. Which hurts Russia more than it benefits China.
I was talking about American strategy. Russia was and is a largely-neutralized regional great power, no longer any real threat to Western hegemonic power. China is a different matter.
China manufactures more than America, EU and Japan combined, and (IIRC) produces more STEM graduates than all of them too. Add Russia's resources on top, and even with the major demographic problems China faces, America has a challenger on its hands that's much bigger than the Soviet Union could ever aspire to be.
Strongly shoving Russia into China's orbit was just plain stupid. It looks like they were gambling on regime change; a bad gamble if ever I saw one.
Edit: all of this is ignoring India too. At some point India will catch up, and then the collective West potentially could end up third.
Of course. That was the plan and one of the reasons why the U.S. did not back down on Ukraine NATO membership in 2021, with the anticipated result (article is from before the war and there are plenty of other sources):
> Of course. That was the plan and one of the reasons why the U.S. did not back down on Ukraine NATO membership in 2021, with the anticipated result (article is from before the war and there are plenty of other sources):
The war started in 2014, the full invasion only started in 2022, so this makes no sense whatsoever.
Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Bucharest on 3 April 2008
We, the Heads of State and Government of the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, met today to enlarge our Alliance and further strengthen our ability to confront the existing and emerging 21st century security threats. We reviewed the significant progress we have made in recent years to transform NATO, agreeing that this is a process that must continue. Recognising the enduring value of the transatlantic link and of NATO as the essential forum for security consultations between Europe and North America, we reaffirmed our solidarity and cohesion and our commitment to the common vision and shared democratic values embodied in the Washington Treaty. The principle of the indivisibility of Allied security is fundamental. A strong collective defence of our populations, territory and forces is the core purpose of our Alliance and remains our most important security task. We reiterate our faith in the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.
[...]
NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.
> I'll never understand why we recently pretend that we haven't been poking the bear.
I never understand why people like you think Russia has the right to decide what alliance countries get into, and why Russia has the right to unilaterally abandon and go against international agreements that they sign (like the Budapest memorandum).
In reality Ukraine had zero chance of NATO membership and it still doesn't until far into the future, Russias reasons for invading clearly have nothing to do with Ukraine unless you can show me the tanks rolling towards Finland and Sweden right now.
So please tell me why does Russia get to roll through Ukraine and rape and torture its citizens with impunity?.
> I never understand why people like you think Russia has the right to decide what alliance countries get into, and why Russia has the right to unilaterally abandon and go against international agreements that they sign
Except I do not. That presents a false dichotomy, and a remarkably simplistic one at that.
Nothing you wrote changes what I posted. I leave it to the reader to decide what to make of the 2008 text above, and the events that transpired afterwards.
Yeah it is sad. It is unfortunate the war was dropped on them. At least they've put up one hell of a good fight for their country and freedom. Inspiration for the world; I think they're rebuild pretty strong.
Flush toilet requires your private house to be connected to a centralized communications OR to your personal water pumps.
#1 is not an option if you leave far away from a town.
#2 is not an option unless you can pay for it and its maintance.
I understand that this sound like a problem or some savagery but in reality this is not much different from the fact that most countries do not have centralized hot water or heating.
My summer house also does not have a flush toilet despite the fact that I can easily afford one. What's the problem?
Check this persons posts, they're 90% anti-Russian. No amount of factual or anecdotal information is going to change their attitude.
I've had the same shitty (pun intended) toilet argument on HN with other Russophobs and there's just no reaching these people seething with racial hate.
"Located less than 200 kilometers south of Moscow, the industrial city of Tula is home to around 549,992 people. And about a fifth of them have no access to centralized sewage systems."
From the first link in my previous comment.
Just bringing data to whether or not Russia is well equipped with flush toilets (or really more the point public sanitation).
From a public health standpoint, human waste reaching rivers tend not to be good.
"Untreated human sewage teems with salmonella, hepatitis, dysentery, cryptosporidium, and many other infectious diseases."
They're generally sanitary (when maintained) and are a whole septic system. And are attached to flush toilets.
That's massively different than raw sewage making it to streams and rivers.
However none of this really matters because the point is that many rural Russians lack access to water and proper sewage (apparently as laid out in the above previous links). So politely you're wrong. Have a good day.
>Located less than 200 kilometers south of Moscow, the industrial city of Tula is home to around 549,992 people. And about a fifth of them have no access to centralized sewage systems.
Doesn't really sound all that outclassed. Ukraine has been shooting down a fair bit of Russian attacks and if I'm not mistaken Ukraine has some better ranged munitions now.
Hardly seems like being outclassed when Russia has spent the last year redeveloping it's logistics.
Additionally this is Russia's best vs the Wests hand-me-downs.
> Ukraine has been shooting down a fair bit of Russian attacks
Yes. With old Soviet equipment (largely S-300s and BUKs). Which further proves my point. But those are running low and Ukraine has already lost a Patriot system just a few weeks after going into service.
Ukraine might have some better ranged munitions than they did previously like British Storm Shadows. They have even less range than the the US ATACMS and both are getting intercepted on the regular. And vs. the Russian Kalibrs, neither are all that special.
But the biggest problem is Ukraine doesn't have sufficient launch platforms for them (they are air launched and have to be retrofitted to Soviet era aircraft).
Patriot system has been reportedly consistently shooting down Kinzhal.
Not questioning whether or not Russia posses(ed) some great engineers (this would have to include Ukrainians then since this stuff was designed in the USSR) that certainly can do it's job when deployed correctly. Rather that Russia has somehow outclassed the "West" seems rather farfetched here.
Do you really believe the Patriot is shooting down Kinzhals? Consider the source. And the physics of it all (the math don't work). And the history of the Patriot system (inability to shoot down 1960s scuds, several friendly fire aircraft incidents). It's a 30+ year old system, after all.
And did you see the full video of the Patriot blowing two full loads before getting taken out in Kiev by Kinzhals (2:14 hit)?:
> Do you really believe the Patriot is shooting down Kinzhals? Consider the source. And the physics of it all. And the history of the Patriot system (inability to shoot down 1960s scuds, several friendly fire aircraft incidents). It's a 30+ year old system, after all.
Yes, its simple hypersonic ballistic missiles are nowhere near new, whats new is hypersonic glide vehicle of which Kinzhal is not. You simply aim for where the missile is going to be in the future and hit to kill it.
Also, the Kinzhal is close to 30+ years old as well as it's just a Iskander thats air launched.
> And did you see the full video of the Patriot blowing two full loads before getting taken out in Kiev by Kinzhals (2:14 hit)?:
You have the video, can you show me a single image of an exploded patriot, you cant because it missed the only damage was from shrapnel from nearby buildings and that was quickly repaired.
Do you have evidence or facts to show that the news reports on the Patriot system are wrong?
Would love to see evidence that the system was destroyed (as in couldn't be repaired; couldn't still do it's mission) and that Kinzhals have not been shot down.
1. Nothing was being done to Russia to force them into their war of choice. China ought to learn that too.
2. We're already in WW3, heavy hitting countries aren't directly firing at each other but enough of the world is indirectly or directly in war via proxies that I'd say the world is already in the war.
3. Ukraine isn't being rebuilt by just one country. A good portion of the free world already has established funds for non military aid to Ukraine. As far as I am aware China has not really aided Ukraine at all.
Why would we be in WW3, when a former superpower that is merely a vestige of its past slowly grinds up their (unfortunately) expandable populace by attacking another sovereign country, which the West supports through monetary/strategic ways only?
A world war would require some kind of equal threat, but that’s just orders of magnitude not the case with Russia vs NATO, and China has no reason to go against NATO for Russia either. Sure, we have nukes now so we still are standing in a bucket of gasoline with a lighted match, but suicide is not in the interest of Russia either - hopefully someone would coup before that.
NATO (& allied free democracies), Russia, & CCP don't have to be directly shooting at one another to have the most of the World be at War.
A lot is wrapped up in "regional" conflicts that mask how much economic powers are influencing and fighting each other through proxies (to secure resources).
