|
The Russians and Chinese will probably go to war over Siberia in the not-so-distant future. Google "Great Siberian War of 2030" for some fun reading about someone's predictions. Russia can't populate Siberia, with its declining population, and China needs lebensraum. Already, Chinese traders are all over the Amur, and have been for over a decade.
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:26 |
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The Russians and Chinese will probably go to war over Siberia in the not-so-distant future. Google "Great Siberian War of 2030" for some fun reading about someone's predictions. Russia can't populate Siberia, with its declining population, and China needs lebensraum. Already, Chinese traders are all over the Amur, and have been for over a decade. You're lucky Tom Clancy is dead, or you'd be looking at a plagiarism suit within days, pal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:You're lucky Tom Clancy is dead, or you'd be looking at a plagiarism suit within days, pal. Heh. It's a DoD paper. I once waited on Tom Clancy, in about 1998. He was among the top five most insufferable assholes I've ever met. TheImmigrant fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The Russians and Chinese will probably go to war over Siberia in the not-so-distant future. Google "Great Siberian War of 2030" for some fun reading about someone's predictions. Russia can't populate Siberia, with its declining population, and China needs lebensraum. Already, Chinese traders are all over the Amur, and have been for over a decade. This is a bunch of BS but it's true that the Russians have been just as, if not more anxious about China's rise as anyone. Russians are extremely nationalistic and hate the idea of playing second fiddle to anyone, Americans or Chinese.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:I also don't see why China would look at what happened when Russia tried to alter the status quo and go "Yep, that's a path we want to try too!" considering even minimal western sanctions melted the Russian economy over the course of three short months. I would think there is an obvious difference between Russia openly invading a country on the door step of Nato/Europe to China playing bumper boats with Vietnam in an area most Westerners consider a backwater. Also China is a lot more economically important to the US which pushed hard for the sanctions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Numlock posted:I would think there is an obvious difference between Russia openly invading a country on the door step of Nato/Europe to China playing bumper boats with Vietnam in an area most Westerners consider a backwater. Also China is a lot more economically important to the US which pushed hard for the sanctions. American sanctions on China would be devastating for both countries but it would be far, far worse for China.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Numlock posted:I would think there is an obvious difference between Russia openly invading a country on the door step of Nato/Europe to China playing bumper boats with Vietnam in an area most Westerners consider a backwater. Also China is a lot more economically important to the US which pushed hard for the sanctions. The US certainly doesn't see the South China Sea as a backwater. Nine of the ten busiest seaports in the world are on it or very near it. Edited for geography. TheImmigrant fucked around with this message at 02:12 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The Russians and Chinese will probably go to war over Siberia in the not-so-distant future. Google "Great Siberian War of 2030" for some fun reading about someone's predictions. Russia can't populate Siberia, with its declining population, and China needs lebensraum. Already, Chinese traders are all over the Amur, and have been for over a decade. It's not going to happen because the Chinese are not stupid enough to fight a nuclear armed power over territory that even Chinese people don't want to move to because it's so poor. Also China's fertility rate is around Russia's so it's not like the Chinese population will need lebascraum anyway. If Russia collapses you might sea a Chinese sphere of influence in Siberia but otherwise it's just going to be influx of Chinese capital into the region which Siberia needs anyway because nobody in Moscow gives a poo poo about them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:How significant exactly can a Russian rapprochement with China be if by your own argument the West just proved Russia to be a paper tiger? I also am hesitant to buy the notion that Russians are thrilled about the idea of Chinese dominance in Asia. "China and Russia working together to take down the West!" strikes me as Tom Clancy circlejerking. Russia has some very serious issues that it needs to face at the moment and it needs for the world to see it as anything but a hemorrhaging wreck. Russia in particular has some economic issues to contend with, massive emigration, and a totalitarian state. Life sucks in Russia and Russians know it. They're vacating the country for greener pastures. Russia isn't on the best terms with the rest of the world for a lot of reasons so they're probably well aware that if they get too weak somebody is going to roll in and eat them. It might be China, it might not, but a big issue is that Russia is declining and if China does decide it wants everything north of it the rest of the world would come to help not because they want to help Russia but because they want China to slow the gently caress down. Russia would very much not be happy with Chinese dominance in Asia but at this point Russia can't really do much to stop it if China wants it. The rest of the world possibly could but Russia by itself could not. This is problematic as Russia still has memories of being the Soviet loving Union that the rest of the world was terrified of. It isn't easy to just discard that and quit acting like a superpower that has the power to take on the world alone if it needed to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
GlassEye-Boy posted:Is it really that different from claims made by other countries? Proximity does not equal ownership. Most countries don't have vast fleets of huge dredgers grinding up reefs to turn into sand so they can make it look like they have big islands in the area. Also according to UNCLOS proximity does indicate ownership when it comes to offshore underwater resources. It's interesting how they're trying to exploit UNCLOS in the South China Sea while ignoring it in the East with Japan. Rosscifer fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:Doesn't Vietnam still pull the strings in Cambodia? Hun Sen was put into power by the Vietnamese. Sheng-ji Yang posted:Thailand recruited them to kill all the commies in Thailand in the 70s and 80s and when that was done gave them citizenship. They pretty much disbanded after that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:The Russians and Chinese will probably go to war over Siberia in the not-so-distant future. Google "Great Siberian War of 2030" for some fun reading about someone's predictions. Russia can't populate Siberia, with its declining population, and China needs lebensraum. Already, Chinese traders are all over the Amur, and have been for over a decade. My girlfriend is a Buryat from Siberia and she goes off on long rants about all the Chinese moving to the area. People are not happy about Chinese moving there at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
on the left posted:My girlfriend is a Buryat from Siberia and she goes off on long rants about all the Chinese moving to the area. People are not happy about Chinese moving there at all. The ironic thing is that there aren't all that many Chinese migrants in Russia period. There are way more central Asians in Siberia nowadays and the Russians are even more paranoid about the Chinese than racist against Tajiks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
on the left posted:My girlfriend is a Buryat from Siberia and she goes off on long rants about all the Chinese moving to the area. People are not happy about Chinese moving there at all. I guess it's good the ROC isn't in control of the mainland then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
dilbertschalter posted:As exciting as it is to blame everything single event in the world on villainous western meddling in Russia's rightful sphere of influence, China has been taking an aggressive stance on this issue well before anything happened in Ukraine (the same even applies to closer relations with Russia: since Xi came to power relations with Russia have steadily improved, while relations with America have deteriorated). This is from a little while back but it should be kept in mind that the vast majority if not all of these incidents were initiated or provoked by Beijing, which makes me wonder if something domestic has them worried or if it's just Xi himself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 05:27
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This is from a little while back but it should be kept in mind that the vast majority if not all of these incidents were initiated or provoked by Beijing, which makes me wonder if something domestic has them worried or if it's just Xi himself. It's common to talk about China has stepped up the nationalism out of fear of domestic unrest, but there's a big element of wishful thinking to that analysis. I think the biggest factor is nothing more than China's increasing power and influence, as its GDP is more than double what it was in 2006 and its military budget has increased by an even larger amount. Most rich countries, on the other hand, were hit by a huge recession and the recovery has been anemic in most places.* I suspect that whichever leader succeeded Hu would been similarly aggressive and nationalistic, because Chinese's position is objectively much stronger than it was in the past. If you want to take China's side, you could also argue that a) The Obama/Clinton "pivot to Asia" and b) Japanese nationalization of the Senkakus/Diaoyus, followed by the election of a genuine hardcore nationalist a few months later were aggressive moves that China had to respond to. Of course, China's typical tactic in foreign policy is to wait for some sort of wrong or slight by an adversary and then to respond completely out of proportion, while endlessly repeating that the other side started it. *I realize think China's "actual" growth isn't as impressive, because a lot of the growth has been fueled by a property bubble and wasteful spending on semi-useless infrastructure, but it's still a much, much richer country than it was just a decade ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Rosscifer posted:Most countries don't have vast fleets of huge dredgers grinding up reefs to turn into sand so they can make it look like they have big islands in the area. Also according to UNCLOS proximity does indicate ownership when it comes to offshore underwater resources. Wait what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:I want to bring back all of the posts I've read in this forum that plaintively said "China is not interested in conflict with its neighbors, it doesn't have a history of doing so and all it wants to do is to develop peacefully." Every China thread in the last five years was filled with those types of posts. I'm no expert, but I live in Vietnam so I tend to get lots of info and personal perceptions on the ground. IMO, China knows it can get away with certain kinds of actions (putting in the oil rig in the VN economic zone) and the local countries and rest of the world can only condemn it with words. The US Navy is now in the Philippines and some think there may be a longer US presence there because of the China disputes. VN can only do so much, and that is call for criticism and diplomatic opposition to China's actions. It seems the Chinese are winning the PR / web propaganda war against the west also.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:It seems the Chinese are winning the PR / web propaganda war against the west also. By virtue of being on the side that is not America, which is not a very high bar.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 09:26
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
As far as Russia is "ready to collapse" I don't know if I would count on it, many people are unhappy with how things are economically but they distrust the West even more. I don't think a Western-learning liberal has a shot in Russia period, the most notable opposition figure (Navalny) has seen his popularity collapse in the last few months. Also, as far as Russia and China, they are competitors that nevertheless may very well work together against a common threat. China does need cheap energy, and Russia is happy to provide even if there are still major issues between the two. (Russia has also a growing relationship with India.) As far as the Chinese "claiming" Siberia, eh it isn't going to happen especially if Chinese people assimilate over time, which is hard not to be the case. Anyway, at this point, I think China would rather just pay for the resources at discount then have to tangle with a nuclear armed power that probably still has a military edge of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
I didn't realize that there was a web propaganda or PR war going on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
While Russia certainly has issues (actually, most of those have recently gotten better), as an ally, they are a huge improvement over Pakistan. Russia has been "ready to collapse" since 2003 according to those western pundits. The only time when it actually collapsed in 1998 with the bankrupcy, these same pundits were going on on how "the worst for Russia is over". Its kind of a turned version of triangular diplomacy actually. This time, China is the one with better relations to both Moscow and Washington. Also, from the Chinese pov, Russia is their strongest neighbour, especially militarily. Expansionist, even you claim that China is expansionist and that can be disputed, nations generally dont go after the "big fish" if they have a lot of smaller fish available.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 10:02
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:While Russia certainly has issues (actually, most of those have recently gotten better), as an ally, they are a huge improvement over Pakistan. Russia has been "ready to collapse" since 2003 according to those western pundits. The only time when it actually collapsed in 1998 with the bankrupcy, these same pundits were going on on how "the worst for Russia is over". As far as the economic situation in Russia, life is still very difficult for a lot of people however at the same time, there is quite little support for "reformists" since the expectation is obviously they are going to sell out the people and the country as a whole...again. Anyway, China does have other outlets for expansion and can get most of its resources through trade. I do think Russia will have to kowtow to China a bit in the future (and arms sales to Vietnam may slow/end) but on the other hand, the power balance isn't that out of whack. China really does need cheap resources far more than "living space" and if Russia keeps or expands that flow there is a working relationship there even if they aren't close allies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
Isn't it predicted that China's population is set to fall back below 1 billion in the next 50 years, anyway? Something like the current generation isn't having any kids, so once the first "one child" policy generation dies off, there won't be anyone to replace them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:Isn't it predicted that China's population is set to fall back below 1 billion in the next 50 years, anyway? Something like the current generation isn't having any kids, so once the first "one child" policy generation dies off, there won't be anyone to replace them. The government has been relaxing the one child policy to deal with this possibility and, on the uglier side, it's also been stigmatizing both women who remain unmarried and, to a lesser extent, couples that don't have any children through semi-official propaganda campaigns. Despite those factors, I think it's unlikely that the birth rate will rise too much, unless the government does something to reduce the cost of education*, which is what has caused the birth rate to plummet to insanely low levels in the most developed parts of the country, just as it has in Japan/Korea/Taiwan/Singapore. *Cost of education in the case means the amount of time and effort you have to put in to achieve academic success not the dollar cost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
Positive Optimyst posted:It seems the Chinese are winning the PR / web propaganda war against the west also. According to who?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 12:34
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:According to who?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:According to who? It's just a light opinion, arglebargle. A few articles on this and that, a steady web campaign in Asia and to the world from China. I only use US media for a few select topics. As for Russia and China mentioned in this thread, yes, they come together to unite against a common angst. They have done some currency / transaction deals recently in trade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
I dunno, taking the Sinica podcast as a barometer of China-watchers they would say that the last 5 years have been one soft-power disaster after another for China.
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Jun 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:Isn't it predicted that China's population is set to fall back below 1 billion in the next 50 years, anyway? Something like the current generation isn't having any kids, so once the first "one child" policy generation dies off, there won't be anyone to replace them. China is also having a major issue in that it's becoming increasingly male. The restrictions on children are causing female babies to be aborted/murdered/discarded or whatever, which is causing there to be more men then women. Makes it harder to make more babies when you have less women.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:China is also having a major issue in that it's becoming increasingly male. The restrictions on children are causing female babies to be aborted/murdered/discarded or whatever, which is causing there to be more men then women. Makes it harder to make more babies when you have less women. They've recently made an exception to that where if you get a girl you can try again until you have a boy (at least for rural areas which are still a significant part of China's population). So basically you have a 50-50 shot of getting to at least replacement rate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
I think the maths work out that if every family kept having kids until they had 1 boy (and no children didn't reach adulthood) you'd have equal boys and girls and reach replacement rates.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:Isn't it predicted that China's population is set to fall back below 1 billion in the next 50 years, anyway? Something like the current generation isn't having any kids, so once the first "one child" policy generation dies off, there won't be anyone to replace them. Even 1 billion would be ten times Russia's projected population of less than 100 million, and dwarf that of all other neighbors save India.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Even 1 billion would be ten times Russia's projected population of less than 100 million, and dwarf that of all other neighbors save India.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
The most recent projections I can find are from Pew. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/03/10-projections-for-the-global-population-in-2050/ Russian population is going to stagnate at best or start shrinking, China's population is projected to hold steady, America's population is expected to reach around 400 million. Africa is so loving hosed the next century.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Africa is so loving hosed the next century. Though that is to a large part because of the hilariously bottom heavy population pyramids filling up all the way, so even with 2 kids per woman you'll still double population over the next 50 years or so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Population explosion plus climate change and the lack of technology to deal with it plus the inevitable flight of Chinese capital once the Chinese economy starts to slow. I'm struggling to think of a single way that Africa isn't hosed. But then again what else is new.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I dunno, taking the Sinica podcast as a barometer of China-watchers they would say that the last 5 years have been one soft-power disaster after another for China.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The most recent projections I can find are from Pew. Fojar38 posted:Africa is so loving hosed the next century.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 16:26 |
|
|
It's strange since I could've sworn that projections said that the Chinese population was going to shrink to under a billion and the global population was expected to plateau. Population projection isn't an exact science and projections that take climate change into account typically have high-population developing countries experience population stagnation and decline as their economies crash and resource crises take their toll.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 00:41
|
|