You have to play a different ball game when you are dealing with China and Russia. Hawkish behaviour won't work. They will resist all the more. Compromise with them or go to war.
No.Different perspective here Sir.
It is same report. Anything wrong with that?
Don't mess with China and don't test their patience.
Exclusive: China warns U.S. surveillance plane - CNNPolitics.com
You have to play a different ball game when you are dealing with China and Russia. Hawkish behaviour won't work. They will resist all the more. Compromise with them or go to war.
The US had been playing compromise the whole time. That was what they decided to do, when Nixon sent ping pong players instead of destroying Peking and Shanghai. That was done well knowing that the day would come, that China would be powerful and maybe aggressive. Maybe that was a mistake. But it is too late now to revise it. But it is certainly wrong to say that compromise works with China. You allow a compromise and suddenly they have a gun on your doorstep. It will be called compromise though. They always call it that.
And itt might look that way, but this incident is hard-ball in its purist form. And it would behoove the US to realize this.
You have to play a different ball game when you are dealing with China and Russia. Hawkish behaviour won't work. They will resist all the more. Compromise with them or go to war.
You took the wrong course with China and Russia. It was hostile attitude and the administration realised it. That's the reason why Obama sent John Kerry to these two countries lately.Our relationship with those two countries is entirely different. Most importantly, because our economic partnership with China is far more significant and more important. China is our second largest trading partner after Canada. We have as much trade with them as the entire EU combined. That close economic relationship means we don't really have an antagonistic relationship with China the way we do with Russia. We aren't hostile with Russia, but we clearly don't see eye to eye. So the way we should deal with China is by simply negotiating with them in good faith and in a spirit of friendship. The way we have to deal with Russia is far more complicated.
They been watching you guys invading. A territorial dispute in the South China Sea is nothing compared to invading. They are making a claim and this has nothing to do with US. Let them sort it out without US interference.
War is inevitable not because of China but Russian aggression and in fact right nuclear ballistic missiles are all on high alert.Oh, I know that, but I do not think that is the best way of analyzing this. For on thing, this is an "invasion" into the maritime influence area of another country. And it absolutely is untrue that it has "nothing to do with the US", as everyone in the area knows.
I do not think that will work very well. We have mutual alliance agreements and all that kind of thing, in the first place. In the second place the US has considerable assets in the area that rely on trade routs that are massively affected by the Chinese activities and their implications. These are threatening and of existential national interest. This must be understood. We are not talking soft armchair stuff here.
But the real clincher is that the shift in power is leading to a multipolar situation. that type of constellation can be interpreted and analysed quite reliably by using Game Theory. What turns out is that there is no optimal strategy that leads to a stable position. In international security politics this means you always end up with a war. e have been testing this theory for thousands of years and the empirical data is very persuasive.
So, what you are probably watching happen, is the second stage of the game plan that analysis in the early 1990's said was probably most probable. I have to run now, but let me remind you that this is so exciting, because with almost certainty this path ends in all out war in the second half of the century. There are ways out, but the last time we progressed in that direction was when Bush got the UN to introduce r2p as a Charter Norm. Since then it has been down hill for us all including China, Russia or Europe.
War is inevitable not because of China but Russian aggression and in fact right nuclear ballistic missiles are all on high alert.
I am curious. Who put China in the position to have so much power? What can we do to change that? Is it even possible?
Before we moan about what the Chinese Gov does and get all huffy about the U S response, or lack thereof, look deeper.
Why are we in the position of groveling?
You have to play a different ball game when you are dealing with China and Russia. Hawkish behaviour won't work. They will resist all the more. Compromise with them or go to war.
War is inevitable not because of China but Russian aggression and in fact right nuclear ballistic missiles are all on high alert.
I am curious. Who put China in the position to have so much power? What can we do to change that? Is it even possible?
Before we moan about what the Chinese Gov does and get all huffy about the U S response, or lack thereof, look deeper.
Why are we in the position of groveling?
Do you think a world without a US presence would be better or worse?
Exclusive: China warns U.S. surveillance plane
You have to play a different ball game when you are dealing with China and Russia. Hawkish behaviour won't work. They will resist all the more. Compromise with them or go to war.
Oh, I know that, but I do not think that is the best way of analyzing this. For on thing, this is an "invasion" into the maritime influence area of another country. And it absolutely is untrue that it has "nothing to do with the US", as everyone in the area knows.
I do not think that will work very well. We have mutual alliance agreements and all that kind of thing, in the first place. In the second place the US has considerable assets in the area that rely on trade routs that are massively affected by the Chinese activities and their implications. These are threatening and of existential national interest. This must be understood. We are not talking soft armchair stuff here.
But the real clincher is that the shift in power is leading to a multipolar situation. that type of constellation can be interpreted and analysed quite reliably by using Game Theory. What turns out is that there is no optimal strategy that leads to a stable position. In international security politics this means you always end up with a war. e have been testing this theory for thousands of years and the empirical data is very persuasive.
So, what you are probably watching happen, is the second stage of the game plan that analysis in the early 1990's said was probably most probable. I have to run now, but let me remind you that this is so exciting, because with almost certainty this path ends in all out war in the second half of the century. There are ways out, but the last time we progressed in that direction was when Bush got the UN to introduce r2p as a Charter Norm. Since then it has been down hill for us all including China, Russia or Europe.
No, it is NOT an "invasion". China has a long history in the Paracel's and Spratly's. And they are the only country with anything resembling a title to them!
Don't encourage warmongers RDS'