SCO vs NATO, who will be the big bro?

[gxnn]

SCO, short for Shanghai Cooperation Organization, consisting of China, Russia and some Central Asian countries that were the former USSR republics.

NATO, the existing US-led military group based in Europe whose imaginary rival Warsaw Pact vanished in 1990

Will the coming years see the direct conflicts between these two blocs?

 

[ll74]

No.

 

[John_von_Neumann]

imaginary rival Warsaw Pact

lol

 

[oggbashan]

China is unhappy with Russia's special operation in Ukraine and its incompetence.

Also, China is Russia's rival for economic influence, NATO is much more united - thanks to Putin - than SCO.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

SCO, short for Shanghai Cooperation Organization, consisting of China, Russia and some Central Asian countries that were the former USSR republics.

NATO, the existing US-led military group based in Europe whose imaginary rival Warsaw Pact vanished in 1990

Will the coming years see the direct conflicts between these two blocs?

If SCO starts shooting at NATO then yes. If not then no. Pretty stupid question, even from you.

 

[oggbashan]

Some of the former USSR republics are scared that if they don't join SCO they will be invaded by Russia. That doesn't make them staunch allies.

 

[gxnn]

If SCO starts shooting at NATO then yes. If not then no. Pretty stupid question, even from you.

Stupid or not, only time will tell. When Hitler wrote and published his book, many people including experienced politicians and scholars thought him like that, but I am not here to say I am he. I like peace, not war.

Some of the former USSR republics are scared that if they don't join SCO they will be invaded by Russia. That doesn't make them staunch allies.

Do you think that singlehandedly struggling with Ukraine and the 27 or more US-led allies behind it, Russia is still capable of threatening other neighbors? Iran and Egypt were said to be accepted to become full members of SCO, and Qatar and Saudi Arabia are considering the same.

 

[ishtat]

In the medium to long term China is a rival not an ally of Russia. Central Asia - the 'Stan' s are already gravitating towards China. China has also not forgotten that Russia in the late nineteenth early twentieth centuries colonized significant Chinese territory in North East Asia. China will move on that issue eventually, not yet, but they have not forgotten.

China might even have to treat their own Muslim minorities rather better to secure the support of Central Asia. It is, however, hard to see much downside for China in the existing situation with Russia, short term the Russians are an embarrassment, but taking the longer view China has become massively the more powerful, politically and militarily without firing a shot.

 

[ffish1]

I don't fully understand these things
but I got ....the opposite? interpretation from googling youtube
than what ogg and ishtat got from their sources

For example, this:

China, Russia, Mongolia vow to extend economic corridor plan​

 

[ffish1]

China is unhappy with Russia's special operation in Ukraine and its incompetence.

you think so?

I think that only 'White' countries (Eastern&Western Europe, former colonies, Israel) are against Russia.
Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East
are secretly hoping that Russia will weaken America's hegemony..

 

[oggbashan]

I did not say that China is against Russia, traitor. I said they were unhappy about Russia's unsuccessful Special Operation. President XI has said that in public.

China does not want to be associated with an embarrassing failure.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Stupid or not, only time will tell.

NATO has existed since 1949. In all it's history it has never once fired a shot in aggression. Yes the group has expanded, most recently due to Russia's aggressive and illegal action. So to ask if NATO and SCO will engage in a military action is a stupid question.

NATO's history has already answered that it is defensive in nature only.

Do you think that singlehandedly struggling with Ukraine and the 27 or more US-led allies behind it, Russia is still capable of threatening other neighbors?

Russia IS threatening it's neighbours, they are fighting right now in Ukraine.

WTF do you think that is, a friendly gesture? Yes Russia is dangerous, they have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet. If the rest of the world doesn't stand united against this, then what?

Your country could maybe end this, if it to joined the rest of the world in telling Russia to stop the war and get out of Ukraine. But it doesn't, it just stands by the sidelines.

Iran and Egypt were said to be accepted to become full members of SCO, and Qatar and Saudi Arabia are considering the same.

Good for them. That means nothing unless you view trade bodies as aggressive military alliances.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Iraq had the third largest army in the world and threatened the Mother of All Battles...

Russia was a superpower and then it invaded Ukraine.

I think you'll find the threat from China's military to follow suit. Especially their navy - stolen tech they have no idea how to operate.

 

[gxnn]

you think so?

I think that only 'White' countries (Eastern&Western Europe, former colonies, Israel) are against Russia.
Asia, Africa, South America and the Middle East
are secretly hoping that Russia will weaken America's hegemony..

I believe your guess is logical because the world is not the US alone. One can often find inspiration in the Chinese classic novel "The Romance of Three Kingdoms" if he doesn't know how the world develops.

I did not say that China is against Russia, traitor. I said they were unhappy about Russia's unsuccessful Special Operation. President XI has said that in public.

China does not want to be associated with an embarrassing failure.

China always keeps its independence. For a country, the best interest is focused on peace and development. Back in 1979, when China began its special counterattack in Vietnam, it also got support from the US and meanwhile it also helped the Islamic militants in Afghanistan to fight the former USSR.

NATO has existed since 1949. In all it's history it has never once fired a shot in aggression. Yes the group has expanded, most recently due to Russia's aggressive and illegal action. So to ask if NATO and SCO will engage in a military action is a stupid question.

NATO's history has already answered that it is defensive in nature only.

Do you know what happened in 1999 when the former Yugoslavia was bombed by NATO and even the Chinese embassy there was hit by missiles of NATO where two journalists were killed and the building severely damaged?

Russia IS threatening it's neighbours, they are fighting right now in Ukraine.

WTF do you think that is, a friendly gesture? Yes Russia is dangerous, they have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet. If the rest of the world doesn't stand united against this, then what?

Your country could maybe end this, if it to joined the rest of the world in telling Russia to stop the war and get out of Ukraine. But it doesn't, it just stands by the sidelines.

Good for them. That means nothing unless you view trade bodies as aggressive military alliances.

What I meant in my post was that Russia could not have threatened its neighbors to join SCO, because Ukraine has been a handful for it. Whether China will work together with the US, Russia, Africa or ASEAN, it depends what it can get or lose from it. So do all the other countries and organizations in the world. At the moment, the effective way to stop the war in Ukraine should be that the US and its allies stop supplying fund and weapons to Ukraine and that EU take good care of its citizens as the priority when they are very likely to have the coldest winter in years failing to pay the bill of heat.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Do you know what happened in 1999 when the former Yugoslavia was bombed by NATO and even the Chinese embassy there was hit by missiles of NATO where two journalists were killed and the building severely damaged?

Again, NATO is defensive in nature....as I said NATO has never shot first. Who was shooting first in Yugoslavia??? Yes it is fair to debate the NATO involvement, but NATO did not start the "Yugoslavian conflict".

Now why did you fail to answer about China's stance on Russia?

 

[ffish1]

But it still dropped Uranium-depleted bombs

 

[gxnn]

Again, NATO is defensive in nature....as I said NATO has never shot first. Who was shooting first in Yugoslavia??? Yes it is fair to debate the NATO involvement, but NATO did not start the "Yugoslavian conflict".

Now why did you fail to answer about China's stance on Russia?

Defensive? Wasn't it an act of interference? What did Yugoslavia have anything to do with NATO? The one organization that should have made peace there was the United Nations.
Regarding China's position, the foreign minister who is now making a visit to the UN has made it very clear, that we do not like wars, we are neutrual, both Russia and Ukraine are good friends of China. It is Chinese tradition not to get involved into the family affairs of a couple. They will embarrass you when they reconcile to each other 5 minutes of their fighting. Look at Vietnam in 1970s, you will know it is such a country who returns favors of China with ingratitude and even war.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Defensive? Wasn't it an act of interference? What did Yugoslavia have anything to do with NATO? The one organization that should have made peace there was the United Nations.

Again, the point is NATO did not fire first. Any other discussion is fair, but you are the one trying to imply NATO and SCO would engage in a military action. That is your question. One I called "stupid" before, and I again make that claim.

Regarding China's position, the foreign minister who is now making a visit to the UN has made it very clear, that we do not like wars, we are neutrual, both Russia and Ukraine are good friends of China.

Yes China has been very clear it's "neutrality". My point is, millions of people in Ukraine are paying the price for that "neutrality". There comes a point where you tell your friend they have fucked up and should withdraw. China needs to do that. India is already doing that.

It is Chinese tradition not to get involved into the family affairs of a couple.

Really. hmmm care to explain why China had soldiers in Korea in the 1950's or Vietnam in the 1960's?

China needs to make a stand, if your government wants to be fore and front of the world political scene, it's needs to take a side in the Ukraine situation.

Leaders lead, they don't sit on the sidelines and say I am neutral.

 

[icanhelp1]

Again, the point is NATO did not fire first. Any other discussion is fair, but you are the one trying to imply NATO and SCO would engage in a military action. That is your question. One I called "stupid" before, and I again make that claim.

Yes China has been very clear it's "neutrality". My point is, millions of people in Ukraine are paying the price for that "neutrality". There comes a point where you tell your friend they have fucked up and should withdraw. China needs to do that. India is already doing that.

Really. hmmm care to explain why China had soldiers in Korea in the 1950's or Vietnam in the 1960's?

China needs to make a stand, if your government wants to be fore and front of the world political scene, it's needs to take a side in the Ukraine situation.

Leaders lead, they don't sit on the sidelines and say I am neutral.

What? Obama led from behind. Probably wouldn’t be in this mess had Obama been tougher on Russia during the Georgian or Crimean invasions.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

What? Obama led from behind. Probably wouldn’t be in this mess had Obama been tougher on Russia during the Georgian or Crimean invasions.

Figures you'd bring up a topic point, totally unrelated. If Obama had enforced a red line, sure maybe Russia would acted different in Crimea. Want to debate that, start a thread, maybe it will get traction.

 

[icanhelp1]

Figures you'd bring up a topic point, totally unrelated. If Obama had enforced a red line, sure maybe Russia would acted different in Crimea. Want to debate that, start a thread, maybe it will get traction.

You brought up leadership, just saying a little leadership from Obama and we probably wouldn't be spending billions to arm Ukraine today. Had Obama been a little tougher on trade with China ( Biden's close buddies ) we'd be better off today.

 

[ffish1]

I was wondering when this will morph into a "Trump good vs. Biden good" thread.

 

[ffish1]

What? Obama led from behind. Probably wouldn’t be in this mess had Obama been tougher on Russia during the Georgian or Crimean invasions.

He wasn't, because Georgia was of no geo-strategic or economic interest to America.
So as far as America was concerned "Let them invade or butcher each other. Why should I care?"

 

[oggbashan]

More practically - There was no way American or allied troops could be deployed to Georgia.

 

[icanhelp1]

He wasn't, because Georgia was of no geo-strategic or economic interest to America.
So as far as America was concerned "Let them invade or butcher each other. Why should I care?"

When aggression goes unchecked it leads to more aggression, VOILA!!! Here we are on the threshold of a nuclear showdown!