The New Great Power Triangle Tilt: China, Russia Vs. U.S.
WASHINGTON: The careful diplomatic stagecraft behind President Barack Obamas recent European visit to celebrate the 70th anniversary of D-Day and to rally the Western alliance against Russias aggression in Ukraine was all but swept aside by strong new currents in geopolitics. While Obama talked tough in Poland to reassure NATOs vulnerable eastern members, Russian President Vladimir Putin happily visited with his Western European friends who buy huge quantities of natural gas from him. French President Francois Hollande not only hosted Putin at a dinner, he refused to cancel a $1.6 billion sale of warships to Moscow.Meanwhile, as Putin and Hollande dined in comfort at the Elysee Palace, Russian special forces were supporting an offensive by pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine that overran a key border control headquarters and threatened to open a land corridor between Russia and the recently annexed province of Crimea, home to Russias Black Sea Fleet.
The Chinese, sitting on Russias southern and eastern flanks, did not miss this split in the NATO alliance. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Putin agreed in Shanghai on a joint statement papering over any concerns that the PRC might have about Moscows intervention in Ukraine, and the two countries signed a massive $400 billion energy deal to seal what both sides hope is a budding counterweight alliance to the West.
While Obama spoke in Europe of Russias perfidy and the need to strengthen NATO, Beijing celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators by eliminating virtually all domestic dissent. Perhaps most tellingly, as Putin attended D-Day celebrations, a high-ranking Chinese general told a regional security conference in Asia that U.S. inaction in Ukraine was an unmistakable symptom of Americas strategic erectile dysfunction.
Withdrawing from wars, especially where there is not a clear-cut victory, is tricky business, and its difficult to avoid sending the signal that youre disengaging not just from the wars, but from your broader international responsibilities, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a recent talk at the Council on Foreign Relations. Former President Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger managed it for a time after Vietnam with their bold diplomatic outreach to China, effectively splitting the communist bloc at a moment of U.S. vulnerability. We had better relations with the Soviets, and better relations with the Chinese, than they had with each other, noted Gates, a Kissinger protégé. There are no such opportunities now.
Indeed, Moscow and Beijing have rejected what they view as the United States aggressive post-9/11 doctrine of regime change and democracy promotion. With the US withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, and our failures to act boldly in Syria and Ukraine the Chinese sense an opportunity to push back against U.S. power. That is also the subtext to Putins forceful move to keep Ukraine in Russias strategic sphere of influence as a buffer against the West, and Chinas aggressive actions in pressing claims to disputed islands and airspace in its near abroad.
more...
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/the-new-great-power-triangle-tilt-china-russia-vs-u-s/
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Nor can the move away from the petro-dollar be a surprise.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)the removal of the ability of the US to fund regime changes and wars in its own selfish interest.
It's a rare bird that prefers freedom to servitude, provided that servitude comes with three square a day, no need to worry about making large decisions, and has lots of cable channels to choose from.
Great Inquisitor, redux. And Russians, Chinese, Arabs--polls all show the same thing. Social order and economic security >> democracy and most freedoms. We never thing that the whole "freedom thing", if curtailed, will affect us. It's always the other guy, the guy we don't like, that is hurt (so curtailing freedoms can be a good thing.)