Is the Spectre of War Rising Again?

I disagree, for the simple fact that while things are quite polarized in the U.S., most of the current issues are not ones that mobilize the masses to speak their mind via the ballot box.

Soldiers dying in droves on Chinese soil over market flooding is one of those issues that can get people moving.

Re: China is "reducing its military capacity" or what have you.

Explain this.

And this.

And on a related note to their "non-interventionist policy" explain this. Where were these warnings from China towards Russia when they invaded Georgia in 2008? Where were these warnings when the Saudis sent "peacekeepers" into Bahrain to curtail the Arab Spring protests? Where were these warnings when Iran was caught red handed again and again interfering in Iraq and Afghanistan? All their warnings and complaints are solely directed at opposing the US and its allies, nothing more.

You don't seem to realize that in EACH of those cases, those interventions were within the traditional spheres of influence of Russia, SA, and the like. American involvement in Mexico wouldn't get the outrage because that IS our backyard.

Also, evolving its abilities CAN be independant of numerical capability, which is where the original statement came from I believe.

edited 16th Jun '11 8:00:42 PM by FFShinra

Oh yeah it would. Have you seen the condemnation we get over building a border fence ON OUR OWN TERRITORY?!?!

I am afraid Tom has a point this time.

And uh those Sphere's of Influence are traditionally of the West not the East and Not Russia.

edited 16th Jun '11 9:31:11 PM by TuefelHundenIV

A good portion of the condemnation is internal, at the undesirability of it, and the waste, as it's really just pandering, not an effective act.

Rather different circumstances.

When has Georgia EVER been in the influence of the West? Georgia has always been a football between the Russians and the Ottomans (and before that local Scythians and the Romans) One regime does not a sphere make, so Saakashvilli wouldn't count. Spheres of influence are built over centuries.

@Tom - Most of those complaints come from within the US itself. Outsiders deride it only because it makes us look like hypocrites to our message rather than anything regarding spheres of influence.

EDIT-

What he said.

edited 16th Jun '11 8:40:24 PM by FFShinra

I am talking about the Middle East which was under the thumb of the British for a long time same for India and quite a few parts of the world. The Ottoman Empire hasn't existed for quite some time.

Also you pulled one example.

Did a quick dig Good lord the Brits held their "Empire" For Quite some time.

edited 16th Jun '11 9:41:43 PM by TuefelHundenIV

You were talking about Russia, which is the one I responded to.

As for the middle east, the British never governed any of its long term territories directly (indeed, not at all apart from foreign policy) except for the city of Aden (Iraq and the Transjordan weren't under their control long enough to make a difference). The sphere of influence isn't merely military control, but also cultural control. Saudi Arabia has that control (as do the Iranians, which is why no one is condemning the former) when it comes to the island of Bahrain.

Dunno where India entered this discussion.

edited 16th Jun '11 9:44:27 PM by FFShinra

The British levied a huge cultural, military, and financial influence in Middle East for quite a long time. Except the one nation that breaks Empires.

Russia's backyard is very small in comparison. China is pretty much China and part of the Planes to their north. China and Japan for a long time Duked it out over Korea. China contested territories with quite a few of it's neighbors.

Wait, there are Planes north of China? I thought Siberia banned flying!

Tell me what influence they put upon Bahrain other than the military protectorate? The sheikhdom that ruled the territory before the British ever set foot still rules it, and as before the Brits took power, remains in contention between Persians and Arabs. The Brits maintain no influence within this part of its former Empire (as opposed to India, where is still does have influence due to cultural absorption, which did not happen in the middle east).

And what is the relevance as to the size of Russia's sphere of influence? Small? Ukraine, Kazakhstan (and the rest of central asia), Belarus, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan is small? It isn't, but thats irrelevant to my point when I brought it up initially: the attack in Georgia (which earned the world's ire BTW until it was proven that Tblisi hit first) was generally accepted as inevitable because it is in Russia's sphere of influence, which will remain so long after Saakashvilli is gone.

I dunno what you're even trying to argue about anymore. Georgia is in Russia's influence, Bahrain is in Saudi Arabia's. Neither are in America's, because it maintains only a monetary link, which is historically known to be fickle. I have explained my point on why I mentioned spheres of influence and the responses seem to be answering an entirely different question. (British? What British? The Empire they had in the middle east wasn't as intimate as India or even the US, and there is no proof it maintains a cultural influence in its former empire)

British "influence" in the Middle East was strong but not for too long, afterall the Ottoman's still technically ruled the area/ had more influence up until 1918.

Its like saying that South America is a British area of influence, its technically true that in the past there was a lot of it (look at football for instance) but it didn't exactly mean that there were not more pressing local concerns and dynamics that have more influence now.

I'm lost, what is happening now?

Bahrain -> West is backing the dictatorship, Russia is against it, China is staying neutral

Saudi Arabia -> West is backing the dictatorship, Russia is against it, China is staying neutral

Iran -> US gets to invade and topple an entire country (Iraq), but oh ho ho, a neighbouring country (Iran) is taking an active interest? Inconceivable, what bastards they are.

Georgia -> Russia invades, West condemns it. China stays neutral.

I mean the way you argue for why the USA must prepare for war with China is basically completely insane. Hey, did you know last year, China trained 10000 new soldiers? They also bought more tanks. And... and... they got more rifles! I also heard they have ENTIRE FACTORIES BUILDING AMMUNITION!

Some other facts about China you might not know. Last year they produced clothes and then they wore those clothes. Totally ridiculous, and out of the ordinary. As well, some of them even have shoes. I think most Chinese people have two arms and two legs. That allows them to operate all sorts of dangerous tools, which puts us at risk.

I was wondering something similar when I read through these posts. Now, I'm asking this out of curiosity, not criticism: is this thread about potential hotpots that will lead to all-out war, or is this a thread about geopolitical Paranoia Fuel? I'm a realist, and I personally believe we need to focus on areas of real conflict rather than bizarre hypothetical scenarios.

I believe in having prepared defenses for a nation, but If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, I'd be fat and sassy. More seriously, we need to stop feeding ourselves tidbits of data that only lead to minor substantiations, not conclusions. We can draw speculation about a nation's or region's intentions based on military activity, but I wouldn't come down to some striking revelation based on some troop movements "over here" and a testing of a secret fighter jet "over there".

Well, most of us basically agreed that there are no "hotspots" where a large scale war could reasonably break out again. Unless you want to discuss local insurgencies, there isnt anything left...

I would agree with the opinion posted further up: that a lot of the alarmism in this conversation looks more like scrabbling for any excuse to justify war, than legitimate concerns about supposed Chinese aggression.

and Agreed. If we're talking about current proxy wars, that's one thing. But that's already been covered on previous pages of the thread and doesn't need repeating. North Korea is the only country I can think of that would be an immediately credible threat, but they're probably more of a threat to themselves than anyone else. And I'd rather not start a debate about the potential dangers of North Korea.

Like I said before, my inquiry is based more on curiosity and less on criticism. It's okay to speculate, but too much Wild Mass Guessing can be dangerous.

edited 17th Jun '11 1:31:01 PM by Aprilla

Oh I don't know plying the trade routes agressively, stationing garrisons and recruiting locals into their military, also manipulating the local powers into doing what they want is very British and one of their most common strategies for spreading their power and influence around the globe. Russia and China are trying to push their influence into a region of the world they never really had any to begin with and was controlled or manipulated heavily by western powers overs the many years.

Go pick up a history book and read the "charming" history of Empire.

It could easily have been much worse. Look at the French and German "empires". Or the Congo under Leopold II.

Not to act as an apoligist for the British Empire (it has enough and I don't think what it did is in any way defensible) but it could possibly have been worse.