Chinese have a lot of money to invest.
They already have a gas deal with Russia...which took 10 years. I think there is a limited appetite on the part of the Chinese to get even more deeply into bed with one supplier, especially one they often have a frosty relationship with. Instead they've turned their interest to Africa and the ME.
Africa and ME are strategically risky for China, because US could blockade them in case of a conflict like it did Japan leading up to Pearl Harbor. There is also much higher transit cost over a pipeline.
They already have a gas deal with Russia...which took 10 years. I think there is a limited appetite on the part of the Chinese to get even more deeply into bed with one supplier, especially one they often have a frosty relationship with. Instead they've turned their interest to Africa and the ME.
Maybe. Don't forget that Czechoslovakia had a formal co-defense treaty with France and England, and Poland had a formal agreement that both would come to her defenses. Didn't save them from Germany. (And in Poland's case, the USSR as well.) I can see a LOT of newly minted Chamberlains saying Putin is just annexing Ukraine (then just Poland, then just Czech Republic . . .) rather than recreating the Soviet Union, so it's not worth World War III. Yet if Putin is bound to bring all or most of Europe under his control, then World War III is inevitable and it's best to face it from a position of relative strength, not allowing strength to be robbed piecemeal.That's a bit hyperbolic. All he can really do is nibble at the edges of non-NATO nations. Yea he's a big old prick for doing it but our options are limited as are his prospects for further expansion. I'll settle for slowly strangling their economy by moving the EU away from Russian energy imports and limiting access to capital markets.
Africa and ME are strategically risky for China, because US could blockade them in case of a conflict like it did Japan leading up to Pearl Harbor. There is also much higher transit cost over a pipeline.
Maybe. Don't forget that Czechoslovakia had a formal co-defense treaty with France and England, and Poland had a formal agreement that both would come to her defenses. Didn't save them from Germany. (And in Poland's case, the USSR as well.) I can see a LOT of newly minted Chamberlains saying Putin is just annexing Ukraine (then just Poland, then just Czech Republic . . .) rather than recreating the Soviet Union, so it's not worth World War III. Yet if Putin is bound to bring all or most of Europe under his control, then World War III is inevitable and it's best to face it from a position of relative strength, not allowing strength to be robbed piecemeal.
I'd like to think so. My faith however is weak that France and Belgium won't decide to sacrifice, say, Estonia or Romania to keep cheap Russian energy.The world has changed a touch in the intervening decades. Russia does not wield the power of the old Soviet Union or anything remotely close. A conventional engagement against NATO inside it's former satellite states would go poorly for Russia. Any aggression against those countries on Putin's part constitutes an insane gamble that major NATO nations won't honor article V.
I'd like to think so. My faith however is weak that France and Belgium won't decide to sacrifice, say, Estonia or Romania to keep cheap Russian energy.
I'm not really in favor of keeping military contingents in foreign countries as a deterrent, and in this case with Russia poised to take Ukraine any move into the area might be used as an excuse to take Ukraine before we could be in place. It's not an easy decision even militarily, much less politically.Which is why America needs to keep military deployments to those countries right now for protection. A moderate size ground force and powerful Air Force squadrons with large reserves waiting in Germany should deter the Russians. Also we should deploy the Navy to estonia and Romania since both have access to the sea and we can use Estonia to pen in the Russians. Any idea on how fast Kalingrad would fall if we went to war with the Russians?
I'm not really in favor of keeping military contingents in foreign countries as a deterrent, and in this case with Russia poised to take Ukraine any move into the area might be used as an excuse to take Ukraine before we could be in place. It's not an easy decision even militarily, much less politically.
I'm pretty sure we would be attacking Kaliningrad hard though IF we were to attack, although probably not to take the Oblast so much as degrade the considerable Russian military contingent's offensive ability.
You guys are playing too much Risk.
What do you think Putin is doing right now? He knows that it is easier to move your army into a empty area than to move into any country already occupied by possible adversaries. The conflict over Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula shows this in clear understanding. Basically this war is more of a war of show of force than actually fighting between the Muscovites and Americans.
Seems to me to be inviting defeat in detail if Putin is feeling that froggy. Also, we should never deploy troops in less than brigade strength; battalions are simply not designed to be self-sustaining more than a few days and typically only 48 hours of hard combat.We deploy one brigade and one air wing each to Romania, Poland, and the Baltic countries. The Baltic countries each get at least one battalion. We have full divisions waiting in Germany. Estonia and Romania also each get one Expeditionary Strike Group to dock in the area.
Seems to me to be inviting defeat in detail if Putin is feeling that froggy. Also, we should never deploy troops in less than brigade strength; battalions are simply not designed to be self-sustaining more than a few days and typically only 48 hours of hard combat.
Tar and feather these ignorant fundamentalist conning scumbags.
http://uatoday.tv/crime/ukraine-s-chief-mh17-expert-survives-assasination-attempt-538353.html