bondjamesbond wrote: Thu Jun 25, 2026 8:11 pm
China will not attack Russia, so the Europeans’ dreams of pitting the Russians against just about anyone are futile – enough of this ‘we’ll hold back the Russian Federation until the last Ukrainian’ show! China has a rival in India, whose population is only slightly smaller than China’s own!
It is more of an observation regarding their divergent interests than a hope.
The desire to form a bloc to overturn alleged Western dominance features prominently in official Russian communication, but far less so in the Chinese narrative.
China is generally pursuing a policy of cooperation as long as interests align on certain issues. However, there is no overt desire to get militarily involved in Russian affairs or to prop up Russia should it face a collapse.
Chinese diplomacy is highly pragmatic, and Beijing would have no qualms about scaling back ties with a partner that became a liability.
At present, a "stab in the back" is certainly not on the cards, though the possibility remains for the more distant future.
It would only take the bilateral relationship continuing to tilt in China's favor, combined with a more aggressive new General Secretary taking the helm of the Party, for this scenario to become a possibility. It would remain highly unlikely, but the potential would exist.
Who would have predicted three years ago that a US president would throw his full weight behind an attempt to acquire Greenland?
Things change, and it would be a mistake to assume that any situation is permanent.
However, it goes without saying that if one were to compile a list of potential regional rivals for China, India would rank much higher than Russia.
And that works out well, as I have no intention of letting the Indian units created by Akkula sit idle indefinitely.
bondjamesbond wrote: Thu Jun 25, 2026 8:11 pm
As for powerful armies, everyone was predicting a victory for the US and Israel over the Iranians; in the end, Iran defeated the world’s number one army, which never managed to break their spirit and morale!
To tell the truth, everyone saw this coming (except the Americans).
There is a saying: when a captain doesn't know which port to head for, no wind is favorable.
Yet here, there was neither strategy nor objective in this war. I think anyone around the world who has studied strategy -even casually- must have torn their hair out at such a mess.
To quote Clausewitz: "War is merely the continuation of politics by other means." Yet, the strategy boiled down to "smash everything until they surrender." But as for what they were actually demanding, I doubt even they knew themselves.
But I gather the POTUS just wanted to show off that he had the biggest one, without the slightest idea of how military affairs work.
I was not hard to predict the outcome, entire books could be written about this failure.
It was the perfect compilation of everything you shouldn't do when starting a war.
bondjamesbond wrote: Thu Jun 25, 2026 8:11 pm
In any new world war, the main thing is that France doesn’t surrender within a month!!!
You know the joke?
"I run the best bar in town, but nobody calls me Peter the Bartender.
I built all the furniture, but nobody calls me Peter the Carpenter.
I serve the best food around, but nobody calls me Peter the Cook.
But I ****** a goat just one time, and..."
