They haven’t applied sanctions on the US have they?
Why would China (and especially India most of whose military is Russian origin equipment) apply pressure on Russia. For the feels? Vibes don’t make foreign policy.
Did you forget the amount of Americans who (despite having ostensibly the worlds most open internet) buy the USG nonsensical claims in the WoT hook line and slinker?
What makes you think Russians are any less immune to being swayed by bullshit?
ETA: I meant more immune,. Duh.
China and India obviously won’t be imposing western style sanctions on Russia. On the other hand it seems like the aren’t selling them any weapons. Even that supposed deal with NK for artillery shells seems to have fallen through.
Neither country really gives a shit about war crimes or civilians killed as long as it isn’t their own (and, sadly, the same is true of most countries including the US, as its long history shows).
But both would care about the use of nukes. Even if they aren’t directly affected by fallout (and let’s face it, that shit spreads), it sets a dangerous precedent. India in particular would probably be happy not to give Pakistan any ideas along those lines.
No, because the US has not invaded a sovereign nation, and has not shelled civilians. I think this is patently obvious.
As to why they would/should do this - because it is becoming obvious that Russia is losing their war of conquest, they are making terrible decisions, and Putin is becoming increasingly unstable. Supporting a losing (and idiotic) side is not a winning strategy.
They also don’t want to end up supporting the losing side, which barring nukes increasingly looks like it’s going to be Russia.
Iraq.
With the expressed goal of regime change.
Even the current Indian Government isn’t as deluded to think that.
Dear God, where do you guys get your ideas from?
…Syria, Afghanistan, Libya.
True. Obviously China and India could have put sanctions on the US for that debacle. I’m clearly talking about this decade, and this particular war of conquest to own a sovereign nation, however.
It logically follows. If Russia uses nukes in this current war of conquest, and there is no reply from the international community… then what is to stop Pakistan from using nukes on India? They would have gotten the message that there is no negative consequence for doing so.
Well for starters, INDIA HAS NUKES OF ITS OWN.
Was the US threatening to use nukes if they were losing there? Refresh my memory.
So? The US has nukes and we don’t want use of nukes to become normalized either.
Do you intend to use them against someone who also has them for shits and giggles like @Euphonious_Polemic is suggesting?
I wonder if you could point out exactly where I suggested anyone should use nukes for shits and giggles.
Warning for AK84: Putting words in another users mouth is not allowed on this board. Do not do this again.
Even assuming Russia eventually loses the war (which, even with as lackluster as their performance has been, is not guaranteed), it’s not necessarily true that supporting the losing side goes against China’s strategic interests. Arguably, simply prolonging the war serves China by diverting US military spending and US policy makers’ attention towards containing Russia and away from containing China.
Note that I am not defending the morality of what Russia is doing (which is indefensible, IMO), or of China’s support for it. I’m just saying, China supporting Russia to the degree they’re doing seems completely in keeping with China’s foreign policy in general. I mean, look at their support for North Korea. Surely, they don’t think that North Korea will ever win a war against the West, but what they do is divert US attention and resources that could otherwise be focused elsewhere. And observing how the US responds to foreign policy challenges such as these helps inform China’s strategy going forward, e.g., in a potential future conflict over Taiwan.
You’ve made some excellent points. You should post more often! I love posts like this that dig into the details make me re-think.
I wonder if this is completely true though. There’s a weird thing about military spending (milspend), it tends to grow. Obviously, during long peaceful period it declines over longer periods of time, but, in the short term, an increase in milspend, begets MORE milspend.
Why is this relevant to the current conversation? We (the US) are expending our munitions at a currently unsustainable rate in the Ukraine. The logical answer to the rapid drawdown of our strategic reserve is to build more.
Those weapon systems, shells, missiles, etc. are, generally, made in America, by Americans. Those Americans have Congress-critters. Congress-critters tend to like their jobs as Congress-critters and want to keep them. So, we will buy more to keep all those Americans+Congress-critters employed.
BUT, enterprising businesses can now say “holy hell, we just gave these to another country and look how fast they got used up! What if WE actually get directly involved in a war? We’d need EVEN MORE!”.
And so we won’t just replace them, we’ll develop the capacity to make them faster/in greater quantity. Which will cost money, a lot of it. But the Americans/Congress-critters involved in the transaction won’t care about that because that money will become (to some extent) THEIR money.
So, to sum up, increased US military spending does NOT benefit China since it will result in a generally increased US capability and, let’s face it, if they’re going to fight any peer/near-peer, it’s us.
I don’t think “diverting” works that way in this case. Most of America’s military spending works just as well for Pacific purposes as European purposes. The development of the 500-kilometer range Precision Strike Missile for HIMARS, for instance, works just as well for hitting China from Okinawa as it does for hitting Russia from Ukraine. NASAMS is as useful in Asia as in Europe, etc.
If anything, by wearing down Russia, the Ukraine war will let America worry less about Russia and focus more on China, all the more so given that it has spurred European NATO allies to finally increase their own defense spending as Washington has long requested.