>>60497027
They don't have a history of good relations. Mao wanted to get cozy to the USSR but they treated him like a 3rd world warlord, so he got pissed and tried to make sure he didn't need them. This desire for independence from need for Russian alliance probably carries forward to this day. That said the only real enemy they could be fighting would be the U.S., and right now they'd have a difficult time of it. When they are actually ready in about 50 years, they won't need an ally.

>>60497522
Ah. Just the U.S., not maybe somewhere in the Middle East? I'd almost think China somewhat relies on the U.S. for all the shit we have them make for us.

>>60500256
The U.S. is the puppeteer behind all 'Western-friendly' countries, including some in the middle East like Saudi Arabia. U.S. will consider an attack on any of them to be an attack on them. It is a soft version of imperialism: don't have to spend money on occupying troops, but still get some of the benefits and influence. That's what I mean that US is the only country they'd be fighting, not that they'd actually be coming over to the North American mainland. They will be diversifying at some point since their middle class is rising and will want a better standard of living which will mean less pollution. Less manufacturing to sell will mean they won't have to keep the same relation with the US they have historically; they can start trying to become the Single Superpower. It will take a while though, unless future American governments keep or increase their rate of spending and basically defeat their own country that way.

Just as the U.S. has a soft empire, China is now building one too. There's room enough for the two now since they're small, but eventually those two bubbles will be pushed too hard against each other and one will pop.

>>60503611
>The U.S. is the puppeteer behind all 'Western-friendly' countries, including some in the middle East like Saudi Arabia. U.S. will consider an attack on any of them to be an attack on them.

This isn't true at all. The US might support them in the event of a war with weapons or supplies, but an attack on a country like Saudi Arabia would not be considered an attack on the US, since we have no mutual defense treaty with them. An attack on a NATO member would be, though.

>>60503748
That is the "de jure" truth, but the way it would actually play out is different. No one may threaten 'our' resources, like cheap oil.

I'm not great with history, but if I recall this is basically what happened with the first Gulf War; someone correct me if I'm wrong. No treaty there either.

>>60497027
You are talking about ww3.

In the event they need an alliance against some1 they are probably more worried about the total annihilation of earth.

And russia and china dont need to do that against anybody except the US