Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I'm sure he is - a former low ranking KGB officer that worked his way up to imperious leader would not happen if his head was full of pixie dust and unicorn droppings.
It would be interesting to know what price China will get for any help that Putin gets. He is in no position to negotiate and will do literally anything to stay alive both politically and medically.I'm sure he is - a former low ranking KGB officer that worked his way up to imperious leader would not happen if his head was full of pixie dust and unicorn droppings.
He is fully aware of his failure to subdue Ukraine and his bluffs have been called every step of the way. He's used to spinning the situation that gives the illusion that he's in control and will keep trying until that bluff wears out, too.
But Jinping, who also uses the same tactics, can instantly spot bullshit a mile away, because he too, is a master of control.
So Putin is going to have to speak to him in real terms. Especially since Communist China knows Russia's position as a world power has eclipsed and has no real bargaining power if China puts him to the test.
I'm seeing Haishenwai as a PLAN naval base.
Cinsidering how China has a hard-on for "one China" and reclaiming "lost lands", I'd bet good money on China eyeing both Vladivostok and "outer Manchuria".Basing rights, perhaps? Cession of the base itself would probably be a bridge too far for Putin.
Cinsidering how China has a hard-on for "one China" and reclaiming "lost lands", I'd bet good money on China eyeing both Vladivostok and "outer Manchuria".
There was also that issue of the border along the Ussuri river.
China just recently sailed it's fleet close to Guam in a show of force - if they're willing to eff with the U.S. Navy, as powerful as it is, Russia in it's current state, would not have a chance.
Of course, there would be some "reason" (overtly/covertly) for the territorial grab, but I really doubt that Vlad the inhaler would give up any Russian territory willingly but is by no means capable of stopping China if they do.
To be honest, there is a local military that holds more potential than Russia, ranks in the world's top 5 and is often overlooked: India.
China would be better off kicking Russia to the curb and wooing India.
Without even bothering with any thought of unintended consequences, I was thinking India for UN Security Council after Russia is removed. That piss off occupy China for a while
It goes both ways. With a near permanent collapse of their pal Russia's power and influence, and China's expansion into the I/O, India needs to get in the West's good books. They're making some progress.We in America should nurture our relationship with India. They're very important given China's moves in the South China Sea, aimed at throttling the Straits of Malacca, it seems to me. China would have to cross the tallest mountain range in the world to get at India on the ground.
It goes both ways. With a near permanent collapse of their pal Russia's power and influence, and China's expansion into the I/O, India needs to get in the West's good books. They're making some progress.
US stands with India after joint military exercises, says 'None of China's business'
After China stated the exercises in Auli, which is about 100 kilometres from the border, violated the spirit of two border agreements, India's foreign ministry responded harshly on Thursday. India's foreign ministry said, "India exercises with whomever it likes, and we do not grant other parties...www.timesnownews.com
India, UK hold two-day joint naval drill in Indian Ocean
NEW DELHI: The Indian Navy and the Carrier Strike Group HMS Queen Elizabeth of the United Kingdom’s Royal Navy conducted a two-day Passage Exercise in the Bay owww.newindianexpress.com
You can't have a unanimous vote without everyone's vote, including Russia's.I am not well versed in the UN's charter, but I don't see why a resolution can't be passed to remove a member from the security Council by a unanimous vote.
The UN was established by the primary victors of WWII, so that core membership would be hard to disestablish.
I am not well versed in the UN's charter, but I don't see why a resolution can't be passed to remove a member from the security Council by a unanimous vote.
It's a sticky situation, but not impossible..