Interesting article. Joint ballistic missile defense test is the ultimate sign of close military relations.
>Russia and China learn from each other as military ties deepen
>Russia and China staged a bold new series of military manoeuvres last month. Not a single ship left port, nor did any tank fire up its engine. Instead, a team from China’s People’s Liberation Army sat with their Russian counterparts in Moscow, running a five-day computer simulation of a joint response to a ballistic missile attack.
>Held in the Central Research Institute of Air and Space Defence in the Russian capital, the drill “was not directed against any third country”, according to Russia’s defence ministry. But few were under any illusion that the “aggressor” in the simulation was anyone other than the US.
>The exercise — which analysts note involved sharing information in an extremely sensitive sphere — was highly significant because it indicated “a new level of trust” between the two former adversaries, says Vasily Kashin, an expert on China’s military at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow.
>“The ability to share information in such a sensitive area as missile launch warning systems and ballistic missile defence indicates something beyond simple co-operation,” he says.
>China and Russia fought a brief border war in 1969, but the end of the cold war and emergence of the US as the global military leader have seen them drawing closer as they seek to confront western military power.
>Few believe they will ever be close allies, as they were in the days of Mao and Stalin, but the policy of active co-operation appears to be deepening on a number of fronts. On Saturday Russian President Vladimir Putin is set to travel to Beijing where he will meet his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping to discuss economic ties.
>>30388137
>But their most significant area of co-operation is the armed forces, say analysts, with military leaders in both countries increasingly looking to each other for lessons on how to counter a superior western enemy.
>Recent years have seen numerous weapons deals and joint exercises between the two, and experts say they have adopted remarkably similar strategies to reform and upgrade their militaries.
>President Xi Jinping’s reform of the People’s Liberation Army, launched in November 2013, is aimed at transforming the world’s largest fighting force from a land army equipped for mass ground battles to a lighter, nimbler, more high-tech force capable of winning in the air and sea.
>The strategy closely follows Russian reforms begun in 2009. Prompted by the Russia-Georgia conflict of August 2008, which Russia won easily but which exposed deficiencies in its army, Moscow kicked off an overhaul aimed at increasing professionalism and cutting the number of conscripts; streamlining command structures; and upgrading and modernising its arsenal.
>“They are doing away with the mass mobilisation force,” said Dmitry Trenin, of the Carnegie Moscow Centre think-tank. “Instead they plan to fight a war with a [professional army].”
>The lesson has not been lost on China. An article in the People’s Daily, the official Communist party mouthpiece, last October urged the PLA to use the Russian overhaul as a model for its own efforts.
>“You see that key aspects of Chinese reforms have been influenced by what the Russians did in the aftermath of the Georgia war,” said Tai Ming Cheung, a specialist on China’s military at the University of California, San Diego. “Russia’s experiences of dealing with a stronger western opponent [in the cold war] — those are very important lessons for China.”
>>30388140
>Beijing has long modernised its military by copying Russian weapons systems, but sanctions-hit Russia is now also sourcing parts and technology from China. In November, Russian officials said they would buy Chinese diesel engines for coastal patrol vessels, after being blocked from purchasing German equipment in 2014.
>In April, Moscow’s Izvestia newspaper quoted a senior Russian official saying the two countries were in discussions on exchanging Chinese electronic components used in spacecraft construction for Russia’s liquid-fuel rocket engine technology.
>First outlined in 2013 by President Xi, China’s military revamp has gathered pace. In February this year China replaced seven military regions with five military “theatres”, while last year Mr Xi announced the PLA would reduce troop numbers by 300,000. Troupes of dancers, drivers and other non-combat personnel are also being cut, and the army-dominated command system is being replaced with a joint command that will give the naval and air forces their own joint staff structure.
>“China has always been very pragmatic and they will take whatever they think works,” said Gary Li, a military expert at consulting company Apco in Beijing.
>>30388146
>The US has identified another common thread in Russian and Chinese strategy, says Mr Cheung: the use of “hybrid warfare”, a strategy that blends conventional and irregular warfare techniques. Russia deployed the strategy in its use of “little green men” — troops in unmarked uniforms — in its annexation of Crimea and, critics allege, to aid pro-Moscow rebels in eastern Ukraine, leaving opponents perplexed about how to respond and giving Russia time to consolidate gains.
>China’s strategies have included island-building in the contested waters of the South China Sea and the “use of civilian and coast guard vessels and even oil rigs to accomplish strategic objectives”, says Mr Cheung.
>“It’s about muddying the waters in order to push military objectives without crossing the threshold into a shooting war,” said Mr Cheung. “When US experts look at China’s island-building in the South China Sea compared with what Russians are doing in Ukraine, they see a lot of similarities.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a3e35348-2962-11e6-8b18-91555f2f4fde.html#axzz4CUcEnlLA
tl;dr
China and Russia are de-facto allies now.
>superior western enemy
>stronger western opponent
dat delusion
>>30388137
>Few believe they will ever be close allies, as they were in the days of Mao and Stalin,
Dumb Murricans dont know that Mao and Stalin were the reason why the Sino-Soviet Split over even dumber ideological dickwaving even happened.
Without their rivalry about whose Communism is better, China and Russia would have stayed together over the entire course of the Cold War and beyond.
The sino-soviet split had not a single realist reason for its existence, but the personal rivalry between two madmen.
>>30388148
They are allays only in countering the US. In all other areas they are competitors. China can not become a global power on par with the US until it becomes the dominant force over its neighbors, until than US can isolate and blockade China. And here is the problem, The last vestige of Russian dominance is in Central Asia, China needs to dominate that region to be able to protect its second trade line towards EU, Africa. Without Central Asia China remains boxed in by East Asian US allays. And leaving it in Russian control means that China is dependent on Russia as much as it is on US for access to open seas in the east. Add to that that Central Asia is also being contested by Turkey and Iran, both countries have lower resources than Russia or China but because of their limited influence building they can focus similar levels of resources into Central Asia as China or Russia can.
>Implying Russia will support China in a war
All those toys they're selling to India and Vietnam say hello. It should be entertaining to watch those two ruin their images.
>>30388137
So, how much would Russia be rear-blasted if/when America buys said "secrets" from China?
>>30388191
The split occurred after Stalins death, it was due to post Stalin Soviet leadership reject Stalins vision while Mao remained loyal.
>>30388195
China and Russia are cooperating in Central Asia, though. Russia has undisputed political influence that the Chinese wont touch with a ten foot pole, while the Chinese only do the economics with their Silk Road project.
>>30388191
>Dumb Murricans dont know that Mao and Stalin were the reason why the Sino-Soviet Split
Nice history lesson you got there.
>>30388202
Russian influence in Central Asia is dependent on local dictators left over from Soviet times, they won't live forever and the new generations will be more willing to look at Turkey, Iran or even China if they offer them more than Russia, excluding Kazakhstan. The problem is, to quote my professor who worked in the region for five years, "...the choice is between being Russian protectorate or Chines province..." and most locals prefer Russia but if China changes its policies and becomes more accommodating and less controlling it could easily gain influence.
>>30388197
Vietnam and India are merely business considerations.
Vietnam wont fight a war with China, and so is India.
Vietnam, for one, has a Communist Party rule as well, thus they will never get too close to the US, who are already supporting dissidents in Vietnam along with the Weapon they sell. The CPV will hedge with the US against China, buy Russian weapons because traditions, but they will hardly go fully in the US camp for fear of regime change and democracy.
India is a joke issue. They cant even build the roads around their tibetan border and their submarines are sinking themselves due to the shit inside (literally). China is instead nurturing relations with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, both of which will help to contain India in their own backyard. Russians also view their India exports as business only.
Hell, China sells Weapons to Indonesia and Philippines still, even if both have disputes with latter. Business is business.
>>30388213
Your professor is wishful thinking about another sino-russian split over some dumb central asian countries that China wont even want to control. China merely wants their resources and their economic corridor to Europe.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but if America wont chance their policy to become more accomodating to either China or Russia, their alliance of convenience will continue and the asiatic hordes wont kill each other for you.
All those wet dreams about two rivals conveniently killing each other and not banding together to defend themselves against the US aggressor sure is telling. The US has pushed Russia into China's arms and vice versa. Sorry to say, but it is the truth.
>>30388197
So long as Pakistan stands India is a non issue. China can keep Pakistan stable and armed in sufficient way to deter any Indian influence building.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2f8_1364092417
Xi Jinping visits Russian Military Command - no outsider was ever allowed to visit it before.
>>30388214
>Vietnam, for one, has a Communist Party rule as well, thus they will never get too close to the US, who are already supporting dissidents in Vietnam along with the Weapon they sell.
Vietnam has a fierce nationalism. Doesn't matter if the ruling party is communist or not. And we don't need them to be ally with us. We only need them to be a counterbalance to China and Russians are gleeful morons countering China with their own weapons.
>Business is business.
Yea, like Soviets sending arms to Vietnam was business. Are you stupid? Like I said, the more weapons that Russians export to China's neighbors, the more they unknowingly counterbalance China. You're talking about an alliance that doesn't make sense globally.
>>30388226
Its not about killing each other its about the fact that there are too many conflicting interest between the two to ever create a US-UK like alliance which would be required to challenge US dominance. Nether country can say that the other will back them up 100% against US because the other could significantly profit from the demise of the other.
>>30388236
>Vietnam has a fierce nationalism. Doesn't matter if the ruling party is communist or not. And we don't need them to be ally with us. We only need them to be a counterbalance to China and Russians are gleeful morons countering China with their own weapons.
Communism is still a force enough that pushed Vietnam into talks with China about the SCS and joint exploration in this moment.
You are a moron for thinking that Vietnam really wants to fight a war against China for your service and for a few islands and fishing grounds. Politically, Vietnam's Communist Party is far closer to China, and Regime Survival is their primary interest. If the fiercely nationalist people go on the streets to protest against Vietnam's regime selling out their interests to maintain good relations with China, you will rather see a Vietnamese Tiananmen and not a War against China that they cannot win, no matter how many Russian and US weapons they have. They just cant. Not in terms 21st century modern warfare.
>Yea, like Soviets sending arms to Vietnam was business. Are you stupid? Like I said, the more weapons that Russians export to China's neighbors, the more they unknowingly counterbalance China. You're talking about an alliance that doesn't make sense globally.
Russia is money starved for every single contract. China is pretty hands off in that regard, and never protests about arms sales to anyone if it isn arms sales to Taiwan. Sorry, but I know that you are going to post that press hoax about China protesting about the korean T-50 sale to the Philippines, but that's just a hoax and China has long ago denied that they have voiced any objections (not that they care, since Duderte is Pro-China and wants to talk with China again).
Sino Russian alliance is the hard reality that the US created by containing both countries and trying to regime change them.
Sorry to say, but your enemies arent dumb and they will band together to resist your hegemony.
>>30388244
>US UK alliance
Moving the goalpost here.
US is the hegemon, while UK is just a vassal. This isnt any alliance at all. It is a feudal relationship between Liege and Vassal. Same with US and Japan.
China and Russia are independent powers who listen to noone but their own interests. Of course Russia wont sacrifice their interest to accomodate China, and vice versa, but both of them have a common enemy and will cooperate whenever possible - for example UN, Island Disputes (Russia send their navy into Senkaku Waters, China joined them to troll Japan together), protection of Bashar Al Assad, supporting each other economically and militarily, and sharing military and civilian technolgies as much as they deem useful etc.
This are the sort of alliances that were forged before the world became unipolar, with the US being the Liege and all other countries merely slaves and vassals who cant say no.
China and Russia are two countries who can say no. Even to each other. But this makes them peer-partners and not slave and master, as all US "alliances" are characterized.
>>30388262
>Sorry to say, but your enemies arent dumb and they will band together to resist your hegemony.
Yes of course. They will band together against ONE person with conflicting interests in India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other countries. I don't need to read your drivel to know that the MILITARY alliance has zero value outside of countering USA. Go ahead and deepen that alliance, you're only going to make more contradictions with your business partners. USA doesn't have to do a thing.
>>30388288
Business partners like Vietnam and India have their own agenda and China actually doesnt feel threatened or contained by them at all, even if Philippines gets an aircraft carrier one day. China has long pushed for joint exploration and that's still China's main point. Every country in the ASEAN know that they cannot defeat China even when banded together, and they also know that they will never get a better deal than the current status of things in the SCS.
Look how fast Philippines folded towards China, despite all the war-drums from the US. Or how Vietnam is already in talks with China. Or how the recent ASEAN summit couldnt get an unified signal against China again. Or how the US-ally Thailand has a close relationship with China, even doing confrontaional air excercises with them, putting their best western jets against China's for them to learn their capability. Here, you see the reality. An Asian NATO with the ASEAN countries is impossible.
Armsales wont change anything and Russia also knows that the odd Gepard Frigate they sell to Vietnam wont change the balance of power. With India, Russia is merciless in robbing them to the last penny for garbage. The Gorshkov carrier and the Pak-Fa shows this.
>>30388137
>Joint ballistic missile defense test is the ultimate sign of close military relations.
No it isn't. The ultimate is sharing nuclear secrets and designs, what the US and UK do. Go shill somewhere else.
>all these chicom tears and generic cliche propaganda
>>30388307
Like I said:
>Everyone will bow to China while strengthening their military with Kilo subs, Su-35s, S-300s, and Brahmos missiles
Do you not see the paradox? This is comedy gold right here. Like I said, the more China's neighbors strengthen their military, the better for USA.
Look, I know this is hard for you to understand, but USA is not opposed to people being partners with China. What matters is that they continue being partners with USA and being militarily stronger.
>>30388331
>All that American tears about having failed the objective as dreamed of by Tom Clancy
>>30388336
>Militarily stronger
Yeah no. Even if all of Asia acquires nukes vs China, they will wont use them. Because it is guaranteed that they will die 100%, while China will only die 99% even with US nuclear umbrella behind them.
In the end, China will still dominate the SCS and the ECS and there's nothing all those countries can do about it. Even with all their weapons, they will never dare to use them against China.
>>30388319
DF-41 was developed in cooperation with the Russians, who provided Topol-M technologies.
Nice try, though.
>n-not true! China and Russia hate each other! see this Vietnamese Kilo sub as evidence!
Pic: Pakistani F-16
I hope I dont have to point out the irony here.
>>30388975
>>30388980
0/10
at least you tried I guess
>>30389095
>no arguments anymore
>b-but muh tom clancy! muh bear and dragon!
pathetic.
Kicking Russia and kicking China and then expecting both to not blanda up to oppose you sure is the epitome of self-serving naiivety.
>>30389111
>actually thinks that the df-41 and topol-m have anything in common when the df-41 is wholly indigenous and better than the topol-m
look, if you're not even going to put a worm on the hook, there's no reason to bite.
>>30388137
The Chinese and Russians only gain from a de-facto alliance.
>>30388195
One Belt One Road is exactly that.
Russia and China have recently been cooperating a lot more on it as well.
>>30388236
The US warming up to Vietnam has only strengthened the CPV's hold on Vietnam.
The CPV protects the CPV. They know that a war with China will only lead to their demise, and no unified world response would emerge from it because no one likes Commies.
>>30388980
>Russians, who provided Topol-M technologies
This is what gooks actually believe.
>>30388997
>>n-not true! China and Russia hate each other!
You can't read can you? China and Russia have conflicting interests but nobody said they hate each other. Their military alliance is worth shit outside of scaring USA away. There isn't any scenario where Russia would support China warring Russian economic interests. End of story.
>>30388975
>In the end, China will still dominate the SCS and the ECS and there's nothing all those countries can do about it. Even with all their weapons, they will never dare to use them against China.
China won't dominate these countries because it threatens the economic interest of Russia. More Chinese economic domination = less Russian opportunities. Get it? I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, but with USA out of the picture, there's going to be several forces coalescing to counterbalance China. You're really naive to think countries will just bow to the next superpower.
>>30389383
>China won't dominate these countries because it threatens the economic interest of Russia.
How?
Russia's only two products are weapons and energy. Not investments and consumer products. You can still operate Kilo-class subs even if you have China to build the infrastructure in your country.
China and Russia arent even competing and your professor who claims otherwise is a moron.
>>30388195
>China needs to dominate that region to be able to protect its second trade line
It doesn't need to and actually doing so would be counterproductive. They'd lose Russia which is their most secure link between Europe. The Central Asian states are vulnerable to US shenanigans, Russia, not so much.
>>30389395
not him but to think that the two biggest industries are the only things that are of interest to Russia is stupid.
China is looking to buy out the Stans so that they can finish the silk road. While they are cooperating with Russia right now, it is in no way a project that is beneficial for Russia. Quite the contrary, the Chinese will have the ability to shut out Russia from Eurasian trade in a heartbeat and Russia is willingly allowing themselves to be threatened economically. They're slowly but surely making the EEU irrelevant.
>>30389395
>Russia's only two products are weapons and energy. Not investments and consumer products.
What an uneducated and stupid remark.
>You can still operate Kilo-class subs even if you have China to build the infrastructure in your country.
Yea, and their military provided by Russia ensures that China won't annex them. That also ensures US investments continue. So not only is Russia being an ally with China, it's also helping our interest maintain independence in Asia. What a contradiction!
>China and Russia arent even competing and your professor who claims otherwise is a moron.
Everyone's competing, child. There aren't unlimited resources.
>>30389395
>Not investments and consumer products
Shows how little you know of the region's economics. Russian companies own large stakes in virtually every strategic industry there is in the Central Asian States. The ethnic Russian diaspora also practically form the upper class in those societies (they are the doctors, engineers, teachers, etc, there). Remittances from Central Asians working in Russia also form a huge part of the economies there. Not only that they also serve as Russia's dumping ground for its products- the EAEU is just a formalization of that fact.
>>30389395
Also look at this: https://news.usni.org/2016/06/01/india-set-sell-super-sonic-anti-ship-cruise-missile-vietnam-china-upset
Yes, thank you Russia for strengthening our economic interest! Wow, China is so strong that they can't keep USA investments away.
>>30389507
Yes, and?
What of it when Kazhaks drive on Chinese built roads and ride Chinese built trains, while still practizing their Russian culture?
Where does China and Russia compete?
>>30389529
Yes and?
Vietnam knows that they cant win a war.
>>30389540
alone*****
US already setting up supply depots in Vietnam and Cambodia.
Vietnam is looking at securing defense ties with Japan and possibly buying Jap tech. Plus as anon >>30389529 points out, India is also creating defense ties with Vietnam.
You're looking at countries as isolated actors, which is hilariously stupid considering Vietnam knows what position its in if it goes to war alone.
>>30389540
>Vietnam knows that they cant win a war.
Doesn't matter. China's a pussy. The more assertive China's neighbor becomes, the better for USA. Sorry, but China can't keep our business away from Asia. In fact, American investments are improving under Modi and continually expanding in Vietnam. Thank you, China!
>>30389561
Yes and?
Vietnam knows that if they start to evict a Chinese island base, their entire fleet will be sunk. No amount of US protection will prevent them to be punched harder than they could against China. The disparity of power and the closeness to China is just that. China has a giant territory, while Vietnam is a small country with few places to hide their means of power projection from Chinese ballistic missile attacks.
Not to mention that the CPV has regime stability as its first priority. If the US entrenches themselves too much, they will only fasciliate a color revolution against the communist regime there.
And you also ignore that Russia is also offered a place in Cam Ranh bay.
https://rbth.com/news/2016/05/18/vietnam-open-to-russian-return-to-cam-ranh-bay_594025
China welcomes that move, as it shows that Vietnam is hedging their bets against the US as well.
>>30389463
>it is in no way a project that is beneficial for Russia
It brings in stability in the region- that is the biggest benefit really. The Chinese are doing the Russians a favor if they don't have to pour as much of their largesse to achieve stability.
>the Chinese will have the ability to shut out Russia from Eurasian trade in a heartbeat
How exactly? Plus, afaik embargoes are a valid Cassus Belli to wage a war- you don't want to risk a war with a technologically superior nuclear power. Even then how? Russia's borders with Europe are not controlled by China, and Russia has ports in the Far East so it can trade with the rest of Asia unimpedded.
>They're slowly but surely making the EEU irrelevant.
Most likely the Russians have made steps to hitch their economic union with China's anyway.
>>30389563
Did you say thank your for China helping to search for the crashed Su-30 and the maritime patrol plane sent to rescure latter?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-vietnam-military-idUSKCN0Z30GT
>China deploys ships to help Vietnam find missing coastguard plane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BV5t7IJ9oI4
>On Friday China sent ships in response to a request from Vietnam to help find a coastguard plane that crashed with nine personnel aboard while looking for a missing fighter jet and pilot. The CASA turboprop plane went down on Thursday in the Gulf of Tonkin, between Vietnam's northern coastline and China's Hainan Island, where the rescue team had found some debris and personal items.
>>30389561
>Plus as anon >>30389529 (You) points out,
That's me, you idiot. I've been trying to get it through your thick skull that a growing Asia benefits both China and USA. You think China's rise will hurt USA economy, but the opposite is true. It will strengthen USA's economy as China's neighbor becomes stronger and seek diversification.
Chinese and Russian alliance is worth shit if they can't their neighbors from diversifying with the USA.
>>30389623
>Chinese and Russian alliance is worth shit if they can't their neighbors from diversifying with the USA.
I disagree.
Chinese Russian alliance is worth a lot, since it defeats any US attempts at blockading China.
Food, Energy, Raw Materials and weapon systems - all can be sourced from Russia when the US is enforcing naval blockade with the help of those asian nations.
An totally self-sufficient and independent China is what the US fears the most, as they cannot blackmail China anymore.
And with a joint ballistic missile defense treaty, both nations will counter the increasing US effort to modernize their nuclear arsenal and to use them as tools of blackmail as well.
By the amount of butthurt dealt to the Murrican faggots, you can see that the current Sino-Russian relationship is already successful.
>As Europe Shuns Russia, Putin Increasingly Embracing China
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/06/21/as-europe-shuns-russia-putin-increasingly-embracing-china/#578c61ab363e
Thank you, Europe/West/USA!
>>30389533
>Yes, and?
Are you high?
>Where does China and Russia compete?
I just enumerated them. Russia either directly or indirectly funds a huge part of these economies that China then is looking to complement or supplant altogether.
>>30389647
>Chinese Russian alliance is worth a lot, since it defeats any US attempts at blockading China.
>Food, Energy, Raw Materials and weapon systems - all can be sourced from Russia when the US is enforcing naval blockade with the help of those asian nations.
>An totally self-sufficient and independent China is what the US fears the most, as they cannot blackmail China anymore.
>And with a joint ballistic missile defense treaty, both nations will counter the increasing US effort to modernize their nuclear arsenal and to use them as tools of blackmail as well.
That's cool and all, but how does it hurt American prosperity? Like I said, the military alliance is worth shit because USA won't be pulling the trigger. I hope China shoots first so they look stupid.
>By the amount of butthurt dealt to the Murrican faggots, you can see that the current Sino-Russian relationship is already successful.
Oh no, what shall I do without the Russian economy. USA is so hurt :'(
>>30388137
By this logic RIMPAC means there is a Sino-American alliance.
>>30389679
The only butthurt from this emanates from Russia becoming subservient to China.
>>30389685
>I just enumerated them. Russia either directly or indirectly funds a huge part of these economies that China then is looking to complement or supplant altogether.
Russia's influence will not be touched by China's infrastructure investments as part of the OBOR plan. After all, China also invests in Russia as well. So, Russia soon be bought by China?
And who told you the Russians prefer to be a resource appendage to the West more than to be a trade partner to China?
The West has created the misery that was the 90s in Russia, while Chinese investments never hurt Russia in any way.
>>30390162
>RIMPAC
China was excluded in every single excercise which involved more than just SAR and counter-piracy. China is pretty much invited to a party, but has to stay outside and drink his beer with the dog.
This, on the other hand, is China and Russia conducting joint ballistic missile defense simulation, which requires information sharing and insight in each country's SIOP.
