The coming war with China - or - the Russians think twice..

Good morning ATS!

I hope it finds you well.

Now like most people here & elsewhere in rational pockets of the web, beyond the tentacles of purest idiocracy, I was rather nervous about the Syrian crisis, and especially so because so many players were just bristling to use it, so it seemed, to reignite hatred & division among enemies, which the forgetful media has labeled as allies, even though the fog of warfare between various parties has barely lifted, when considered against the vast & endless backdrop of history. I won't be explicitly stating who I most 'fear' as a destabilising player in Syria, because - aside from ISIS - there are only two players with that sort of potency, and proven ability to disrupt. And one of them is Western (clues much?)

But in truth, according to the open consideration of the forums, and several independent, quality news sites, we were mostly concerned that somehow this would erupt into conflict between the triple axis of Islamic fundamentalism, a Russo-Iranian bid of retort to American hegemony, and of course the Anglo/Euro-American alliance. Now while I don't deny that such a conflict is likely, in the end - perhaps inevitable - I realised yesterday, having been as surprised as anyone by the sudden, unexpected visit of Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov to the White House for a meeting with the Trump; perhaps, the script is in the process of being reformulated?

I began to wonder why, in the midst of a geopolitical standoff over Syria, suddenly the Russians would be willing to come visiting with Trumpton, and I had a shade of an inkling as to why that MIGHT be, and it's purely a shoot-from-the-hip conjecture at this stage.

Now we all find it funny to mock Kim Jong-Un, but the Chinese certainly didn't find recent escalations funny - and they responded to the US aggrandisements in the region with calculating, precise vapidity. They were quite specific in their OPEN statements to the US, and so just imagine the scramble which must have been going on behind the scenes.

So I got to thinking - what if the informal balancing agreements between China & the West suddenly, in the heat of potential tide-turning interventions over North Korea, suddenly didn't look so appealing to the Anglo/Euro-American alliances, and what if Russia had a sense of impending race/culture-delineated conflict? Not saying this to be inflammatory, but a part of me sincerely believes that China are SO different from the Western nations, that an analysis of Chinese intentions by the Russians, led not to a calm sense of thankfulness that the Chinese keep the US in check, but rather to deep uncertainty of what a China-US shooting war would imply for the rest of us, even if nukes were off the table. I have an intuited sense of unease, that the Russians took a look at the Chinese hand during recent Pacific revelations, and determined that there is an ever-more secretive, calculated backdrop to the Chinese worldview & their place within geopolitics which actually gave rise to a deep, almost primal intimidation in the racial-cultural identity complex of the Russians. In humble intuition, and of course I may be totally off the mark (and if that's the case this post will desiccate where it falls) - my belief is that the Russians, or at least the dominant factions within that conglomerate oligarchy, took another look at their bilateral relations with other feted allies (eg - Turkey, Iran..) - and may have begun taking steps towards a potential rewrite of the script, turning this from a political precipice, into a racial-cultural precipice of war.

I believe that we may already have seen the development of off-world 'nations' (conglomerated interest groups) - certainly the financial shenanigans of the past hundred years have prepared the ground/ sky for such to have occurred, stemming from roots in the American (& some Nazi) military-industrial complex. These off-worlders would now be less & less concerned with geopoltics, more concerned with exo-politics - and indeed, I get the impression that they have worked deliberately to sever direct dependency on the world we know.

If these off-worlders have any sense, they would probably be wise to take a step back from planet Earth in the next few years. I have started to consider that the Anglo/Euro-American alliance, is about to become an Anglo/Euro/Russo-American alliance, with the Great Bear abandoning its ill-advised relations with Islamic nations, primarily because they now sense that the greatest threat is most definitively the Chinese, and given the pace of their advancement, they will be unstoppable within a couple of decades. A Chinese hegemony would necessitate the subjugation of non-oriental nations, giving rise to all manner of counter-intuitive cultural effects - which the West, and now perhaps Russia, will see as being too unpalatable for that situation to develop unchecked. While I don't think open shooting war will result at least in the near-term, I believe that quite possibly, secretive wars using exotic technology, weather weapons perhaps, or the induction of natural disasters - in some cases being counterbalanced by off-world alliances, of which we cannot imagine the effects thereof, as they are unknown factors (unless you happen to be through the glass ceiling of the conventional military-civic-intelligence world, which I most assuredly am not..) This says nothing of the inevitably lost Islamic slice of the pie. The Islamic tendencies to brutality, blinding ignorance & oppression can never be unwound from the deeply counter-intuitive inverse morality of the textual & traditional heritage which is the substrate of these evils, and I maintain that ultimately, Islam will be literally outlawed in an enlightened world, being recognised for the seed of venom which it truly is. But for now, it's too deeply divided to offer enough of a threat to cause redrawing of alliances beyond what I have suggested above, being limited to the pedestal of perennial terrorism which keeps the minds of Westerners busy, not worrying about the potentially world-changing potential vested in our uneasy relations with the Orient.

So in summary, I had a flash of intuition which tied all of the above together in a cross-synaptic firestorm of actual or pseduo-insight, and the net image precipitating all of it, is an image of Lavrov glancing nervously from side to side, seeing the Chinese, checking their existing Islamic alliances, and backing away slowly, before appearing with Trump, in the first staging post of perhaps a redrawing of the boundaries of common purpose. All within a flash, in a second of time. Our minds are incredible - and of course while this theory may be dead wrong, reflective only of my own prejudices & assumptions, yet it could be something more than that. It is not for us to reason, perhaps - only to act in the best possible manner which we can surmise, under whatever circumstances become evident in the poly-symphony of orchestrated particles & waves in which our minds dwell, the watchers between worlds.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
I still think the old Nixon approach was much sounder than anything I've seen recently;
Better relations with China to set off against the threat of Russia. That certainly makes sense from the European view-point. The Byzantine empire used to do the same thing. If the neighbours on the frontier were troublesome, they would make offers to the people behind the neighbours.
In other words, don't be inveigled into war with China, by the Russians or anybody else.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Absolutely I see the reasoning behind your comments, but I disagree that Russia would be trying to inveigle war with the Chinese. I see it as being an almost 'humble' withdrawal from certain postural moves, a quiet shift from one stance to another, shuffling across the divide on stage to respectfully align themselves with the main players of the 'Western' world, a world of which they were always a part, albeit not really being acknowledged as such - the ever-useful big bad bear. I do truly see this as a move rooted in the most existentially assured pathway to protect their own people, not because they see themselves as inferior or of needing protection, but purely as the result of pragmatic rationalism & a philosophy which emphasises shared values of commonality instead of the intolerance of false differences.

Ditto the supposition that our natural geopolitical enemy is China, and our natural ally is Russia.

China is an old, reincarnate empire thousands of years old. They have natural resources, tech pioneers and venture capital out the wazoo. Russia, like us, is fairly young, pseudo-democracy, in terms of human and natural resources, and their executive branch is a well-tailored, spiffy arm of their intelligence services, with a critical mass of IT propaganda infrastructure. Basically we the people cuffed in a full nelson and the PTB are reaching for the lube. With the invitation of the Russians to the White House, it's shaping up to be a threesome.

This is all just big dicks comparing their little dicks to see who's bigger. Any thought to this as seen in a war brewing is just wasted energy. If either leader gets assassinated then let the good times roll but until then.

Keep it easy.

I don't think having any nuclear bombs go off anywhere in the world is a good idea. One Tsar Bomba will ruin your day! The Russian's Tsar Bomba is like the MOAB of nukes. It's pretty much a doomsday machine.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I don't think having any nuclear bombs go off anywhere in the world is a good idea. One Tsar Bomba will ruin your day! The Russian's Tsar Bomba is like the MOAB of nukes. It's pretty much a doomsday machine.

+1,
that thing is scary.

I have to wonder if the US government has something similar they just don't talk about.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

These leaders can't be that ignorant about the amount of devastation each country can inflict with a nuclear and even with just conventional weapons. (The North Korean dictator is another story altogether). He's so full of himself and needs to show his manhood that his goal of grander has made him ignorant of the consequences of a nuclear war. What's sad is his country and the innocent people of North Korea would bare the brunt of it and most likely be pummeled into a parking lot.

Nobody in the world should have absolute power to declare war on another country. It's why the United Nations should be a strong force to be reckoned with. Unfortunately it's not ruled on a level playing field and consequences are not equally applied. Clear consequences of broken agreements, invasions, and threats of war should be met with a 100% of world governments condemning and using a world military force against that country if necessary. A world constitution which include mutual respect, condemnation of the threat of war and war itself, meddling in a country's internal affairs, and a condemnation of basic human rights should be strictly enforced.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
I still think the old Nixon approach was much sounder than anything I've seen recently;
Better relations with China to set off against the threat of Russia. That certainly makes sense from the European view-point. The Byzantine empire used to do the same thing. If the neighbours on the frontier were troublesome, they would make offers to the people behind the neighbours.
In other words, don't be inveigled into war with China, by the Russians or anybody else.

Nixon was a greedy, self centered, paranoid control freak. His approach was to bomb them into submission, punish his detractors and push US weight around. The difference today is the greed at the top of the worlds money grubbers is no longer satisfied with a piece of the pie, they want the whole thing. The former world of mutually respective superpowers is to be swept away in favor of total domination.

It always ends up this way, impircal aspirations in the Jet Age. Instant communication of ideology thru delivery of supersonic weapons of war.

Edit: Nixon was evil incarnate, he started the war on drugs and the Petro Dollar, to which we are all enslaved to this day. But I'll let Hunter Thompson scathe him, he's so much better at it...

Hunter S. Thompsons eulogy of Nixon

originally posted by: intrptr
His approach was to bomb them into submission, punish his detractors and push US weight around.

I was talking about his relationship with China, which is something different.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: intrptr
His approach was to bomb them into submission, punish his detractors and push US weight around.

I was talking about his relationship with China, which is something different.

His 'relationship with China' was a ploy to divide the communists, Russian and China were both opposed to US occupation of Vietnam. Dividing them against one another would favor the US position in South East Asia.

Making friends wth the Stalinist Chinese was not a friendly gesture.

a reply to: intrptr
In other words, it was a sound and well-chosen diplomatic strategy, which was my point.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

To my mind most people in China, Russia, America and there allies are just ordinary day to day folk but the danger is down to a clash of incompatible system's were China is concerned as well as incompatible ideology were with Russia it is more down to old distrust and well over half a century of animosity driven by a small group on both sides of that domain.

Politics come and go But another danger remain's, over the decades so much was done in these nations to paint there ideological adversary's as bad that it has become popular to speak angry about them and all we need is an idiot in a position of power to cause a real war but if it happens' all sides will lose out because of it since we live in a symbiotic world and actually need one another and indeed it would be those ordinary folk's, those innocent people who ultimately pay the price.

There is another danger too, those whom see war as an opportunity and a profitable franchise.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment
I still think the old Nixon approach was much sounder than anything I've seen recently;
Better relations with China to set off against the threat of Russia. That certainly makes sense from the European view-point. The Byzantine empire used to do the same thing. If the neighbours on the frontier were troublesome, they would make offers to the people behind the neighbours.
In other words, don't be inveigled into war with China, by the Russians or anybody else.

There are Americans living in America that actually want a war against China. Make some sort of excuse to build their dream white man empire. That is mostly from the racist people point of view. That is why China sees US as a threat. If your own Gov doesn't want to put down those people causing trouble in the Asian sector. China will be forced to come in.

a reply to: makemap
My government is the British government, so that may be a reason for me to be more conscious of the Russian threat.

originally posted by: Namdru
Ditto the supposition that our natural geopolitical enemy is China, and our natural ally is Russia.

China is an old, reincarnate empire thousands of years old. They have natural resources, tech pioneers and venture capital out the wazoo. Russia, like us, is fairly young, pseudo-democracy, in terms of human and natural resources, and their executive branch is a well-tailored, spiffy arm of their intelligence services, with a critical mass of IT propaganda infrastructure. Basically we the people cuffed in a full nelson and the PTB are reaching for the lube. With the invitation of the Russians to the White House, it's shaping up to be a threesome.

Russia is much older than US. They were there when the Mongols invaded. US didn't even exist at that time. US was suppose to be a free nation, but taken over by corporate influence. Russia is no dumb enough to trust the US. Back stab once, against Russian Imperialism. Back stab twice WW2. Third time, no way its going to happen.

It is an interesting idea to imagine that Russia would side with the US against anyone. The US has spent almost one hundred years trying to put its foot on the neck the Russian Bear. If you think they are meek enough to run into junior partnership then you don't understand the Russian psyche.

On the other hand, Russia and China have rubbed up against each other for centuries and learned that neither is capable or willing of wiping the other off the map.

The motivation for Russia to partner with the West against China is not there.

I think it is more likely that TPTB in the US and the West are fully aware that they need the oil and gas from the middle east and central asia in order for their hegemony to survive the next twenty years. Regime change in Syria and Iran is necessary for this. Eventually Russia will need to be dealt with.

That's the way they see it, anyway.

Then the biggest cold war this planet will ever see between the West and China.

ALSO, just to make a point about your unthoughtful Islam-related comments. Sure, like many old books, especially, religious ones, the Qu'ran is full of outdated advice and violence. Sure, like most patriarchal systems it seeks to subjugate the majority in one way or another. Sure, the spread of Salafism and Wahhabism as supported by the West has led to lots of conflict in the last 30 years.

But, just as every belief is a matter of interpretation, Islam could of course be interpreted in a different way in the future. A way that focusses on the more positive aspects found within its teachings. But it won't be. You are right in suggesting it will be consigned to history but you are wrong as to why. As a political ideology it offers a financial structure based on debt WITHOUT INTEREST. This is the real reason why it has been deliberately set up to be destroyed in the last half century.

a reply to: makemap

Third time, no way its going to happen.

Maybe, but maybe also never say never. And geopolitics makes for strange, strategic trysts, the more clandestine the better.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: intrptr
In other words, it was a sound and well-chosen diplomatic strategy, which was my point.

My point was Nixon 'friended' China to manipulate them, making NIxons peace overture a lie.

Nixon was a liar.

a reply to: mersaultdies

As a political ideology it offers a financial structure based on debt WITHOUT INTEREST. This is the real reason why it has been deliberately set up to be destroyed in the last half century.

I would posit that you are getting it very much upside down.

Debt without interest is the ONLY reason it has persisted as long as it has. If it weren't for that aspect, then thoughtful, righteous people would have been able to destroy its vile inverse 'spirituality' (read: Total Life Domination & Enslavement System, Especially With Regards to Females...) a long, long time ago. Free money plus freedom to abuse young girls without penalty, indeed being encouraged to do so? It causes the scum to rise to the top.