02-25-2017, 02:53 PM
(02-25-2017, 05:59 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:(02-21-2017, 01:22 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:Quote:My argument with Jordan is I see no reason for China to act as Spain did, and start exhausting wars in their interior, when there is an overseas empire waiting to be occupied as the old leader declines. As for the Russians, unlike Portugal and the Netherlands, China will be far stronger than they so there is no percentage in provoking a fight they can't win. Better to expand in the other direction.
My contention is that I think there are limits on the extent to which China can become a fully maritime power, as opposed to a more hybrid power like France or Spain. They're not an island, nor are they surrounded by political dwarfs like the US. They're always going to have to balance their maritime interests with their position on the continent. Large, autocratic land empires do not make good neighbors, and there is ample cause for competition and maneuver there between them. Likely a cold war, rather than a hot one, at least at first, but those tensions will be there.
Thus why the Dutch example Mikebert brings up might be the best one.
However, China has always been an inward looking power, not an outward looking one. They've never had sufficient sustained interest to maintain overseas colonies. There might be minor border clashes with Russia or on the East and South China Seas, but the risk is accidental escalation, not some expansionary conspiracy.
Quote:*sigh*
Looking at the news, talking to people in RL, and reading some of the posts here from people who should really know better, I am getting worried that the 4T start date may be 2008, not because of the FC, but the Russo-Georgian war. The level of hysteria over Russia I have been watching over the last 2 years or so is bloody ridiculous. Trump appears to be the only goddamn brake on that in sight, which is not a comforting thought.
The Russo-Georgian war marked the beginning of actual military adventurism on the part of Russia. That's something to be concerned about. You have to admit, there are parallels between Crimea and South Ossetia and East Ukraine on the one hand, and the Ruhr, the Sudeten, and Austria on the other.
Thus far, the US and NATO have been holding this adventurism somewhat in check. There needs to be a balance, though. If Europe were to go into full appeasement mode, we might see the rest of Georgia and Ukraine occupied, and then the Baltics and more. At that point one could easily see Putin's domestic popularity becoming dependent on further adventurism. And you know what resulted the last time that happened.
That's not hysteria, that's realism. Now, there has been some hysteria since the election started, but that's just motivated by a desire on the left to attack Trump using any tool they have. That hysteria is tied to being out of political power, so it won't translate to policy. The Democrats are not going to nominate someone in 2020 on the basis that he advocates war with Russia.
Thus far, the Trump administration has been doing an excellent job. The guy who supported giving all of Ukraine to Russia was kicked out, but there has only been lip service on return of Crimea, without actual action. We've inserted ourselves back into the process on ISIS by proposing concessions to NATO ally Turkey in return for cooperation with Russia on the rest of Syria, and gaining valuable experience in balance of power politics in the process. This is a big improvement over the Obama "speak loudly, and flail about randomly with a twig" strategy.
I don't disagree, but I don't see anything yet that can be attributed to Trump to restrain Russia or negotiate over Syria, etc.