Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied
HiloBill    5/13/2005 5:17:09 PM
I have posted at another subforum here never realizing that a "Russia Discussion Board" existed. Most all my posts were related to Russia. As I had explained at the other sub-forum, I believe Russia (and China) pose a lethal threat to America and the rest of the West. The website I had been working on for a couple of months is now completed: http://www.thefinalphase.com It is totally commerical free and no money is made there - it is solely for the purpose of raising awareness of the aforementioned threat. Below is my introduction to the site: "The Final Phase" Thesis An Introduction Russia and China are not our friends. They are not our true partners in the war on terror or in the world of free-trade. They engage the West as partners for now while it is to their advantage, but only as a means to an end. Conventional wisdom concludes that Russia and China "need" the West for their long-term national interests and prosperity. They do not; there are other avenues. Today, we establish joint intelligence operations with Russia's FSB (former KGB) in the war on terror and consider them to be full - "need to know" - partners and share our intelligence with them. This is a dangerous partnership. We invite China as a go-between partner in negotiating with North Korea to cajole them to abandon their nuclear program. We entrust China to act in good faith on our behalf when in fact they are more apt to manipulate the tension using North Korea as a potential diversion ploy in sync with their future military designs against Taiwan. Contrary to Beijing’s pronouncements, they are not concerned about Korea’s saber rattling; they welcome it and use it. Russia and China’s continuing modernization of weapon systems - especially strategic - and buildup of military might is rationalized and explained away by sophisticated, hopeful analyses in the West. However, such analyses fall short of adequately assessing their true threat and intentions. It appears no one dares say or even suggest what could be behind their growing military posture and mutual relationship. Besides, it is now a universally accepted notion that terrorism poses the largest and most imminent threat to the West. Whatever threat Russia and China may pose in the future it has taken a back seat to the more immediate concern of terrorism. (Ironically, there is a distinct possibility that today's terrorism may be interrelated to - part and parcel of - coordinated efforts and influence of Russia and China in the form of asymmetrical and proxy warfare against the West. For example, see Drugs, Russia & Terrorism and China's Military Planners Took Credit for 9/11.) Although masked to varying degrees, Russia and China are hostile toward the West and are jointly aligned with an objective to permanently end the West's "hegemony." The United States and Great Britain have abandoned their Cold War posture and are restructuring their intelligence organizations and concepts compelled by the new threat posed by terrorism. Defense is likewise restructuring and abandoning many of its heavy war-fighting concepts and components. It appears to be beyond the comprehension of Western intelligence that Russia and China may be acting in collusion and coordination against the West. Our preconceived notions about their supposed "primordial distrust" of one another tends to render this concern moot. We view Russia and China as two, distinctly separate nations pursuing their own national interests. But, what if Western intelligence is wrong? Less then two months before the 9/11 attacks, Russia and China signed a treaty in Moscow, on 16 July 2001, which may contain what some intelligence analysts suspect are secret military codicils beyond its overt provisions. However, even its overt language clearly indicates Russia will join China militarily should an "aggressor" interfere with its "internal affairs" over the issue of Taiwan. What are the ramifications of a militarily unified Russia and China to the world's balance of power? Has this been seriously considered by Western intelligence? At this late stage of "the final phase" plans of Russia and China, it may be too late for the West to awaken in time to thwart the emerging threat of their covert strategic alliance - time is running out. "The Final Phase" The threat posed by Russia and China - which trumps the threat of terrorism - does not originate in their alliance of 16 July 2001. The threat goes back much further than that. In 1961, a KGB major defected from Russia and unsuccessfully tried to warn Western intelligence of a long-range strategic deception planned against the West. The defector was Anatoliy Golitsyn. He said that Russia and China would feign a split between themselves in order to work a "scissors strategy" against the West. Confident that the West would try to take advantage of an apparent split between them, they pursued myriad ploys - including border cl
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT
glenn239    RE:Note   5/27/2005 7:22:25 PM
Looking forward to it. The major point (for me, at any rate) is that I'm concerned too great a focus on the potential of an alliance against us, too much emphasis on potential hostility, could lead to a closer Russian-Chinese axis, and indeed more genuine antagonism. I realise that what you say might hold some (or much) truth, and certainly the possibility must be allowed for when planning strategy, but I wonder whether the right "balance" has been achieved. By "right balance", I mean a public position that best promotes the interests of the American government. I don't necessarily mean the best guess at what's going on (I'd be the first to demand realistic contingency planning based on the alliance you suggest), but the interpretation that best blends the complex and varied interests of the nation. I'm wondering if the old adage, "walk softly and carry a big stick" may be sage advice.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    Russia AND China; The Two Are Allied? I don't buy it.   6/5/2005 4:10:56 AM
I'd beg to differ on this one. As of late, there have been more US/NATO cooperation with former Warsaw Pact nations and Russian elements than has there been combined exercises between Russian and chinese elements (I could be wrong here, but the international defense databases I frequent mention little of it.) I don't consider arms sales agreements to mean that, should global hostilities increase, Russia would side with chinese concerns. Regardless of china's chunk of funding it's thrown into the Russian economy (arms sales mostly), a good portion of the political powers in Russia are more aware that they stand a better chance engaging in European and western ventures and endeavors rather than the potluck they would have to contend with under any pan-Russo-chinese agreement. Here's one example: http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,SS_060305_Russian,00.html By Ben Murray Stars and Stripes European edition GRAFENWÖHR, Germany — There's just no better way to say ‘I trust you' to a former Cold War adversary than to hand him the keys to your fully-loaded Abrams tank and show him how to pull the trigger. But such was the situation Thursday at the Grafenwöhr training area as Russian and American soldiers took part in a historic training program at the U.S. facility, where enlistees from both armies were paired together for the first time in a joint live-fire operation in Germany. About 300 troops from the Russian Combined Arms Academy and the 4th Russian Armored Division — backed closely by American helpers and translators — shouldered U.S. machine guns, drove Bradley fighting vehicles and performed short battle maneuvers in the capstone of Exercise Torgau 2005. The two-week program is meant to build relations between the two armies. “They had a blast out there,” said 1st Lt. Brett Brenkus, a tank platoon leader for the 1st Battalion, 37th Armored Regiment, whose troops were showing Russian soldiers how to drive and fire the American tanks. The exercise is the second portion of a years-long program started to improve Russian and American forces' knowledge of the other's weapons and tactics, with the goal of eventually allowing them to perform large-scale joint combat operations. U.S. commanders said a large portion of the operation — named for the town where U.S. and Soviet forces first made contact in eastern Germany at the end of World War II — is simply to let the front-line troops become familiar with each other. To that end, American troops from the 1st Armored Division spent a week in Moscow and a military training center near the Russian capital trying out Kalashnikov rifles and T-72 tanks before returning to Germany to let the Russian soldiers handle U.S. equipment. Soldiers from both nations said that even though language barriers often impeded the transfer of specific knowledge of weapons systems and tactics, many of the troops had quickly formed bonds over the course of the exercise. “We have a lot in common,” Lt. Akhmed Kazharov, battalion commander at the Russian Combined Arms Academy. “I think ... a lot of the soldiers will be friends for a long time,” said Spc. Daniel Manor, a translator from the 501st Military Intelligence Battalion. The exercise, which started on May 23, will wrap up Friday with closing ceremonies at Grafenwöhr. Of course, I would imagine there are the handful of pro-chicom supporters here that would label Stars and Stripes as one more form of "vile western propaganda" to be ignored or burned, but does anyone from the western Pacific region care to post up the latest military exercises between chinese and Russian troops exchanging ideas and building comraderie? As for economic agreements, no offense, Bill, but have you looked into just how many European companies and corporations have been slowly easing their way into the Russian economy, as opposed to chinese investments in anything other than strategic resources and military packages? (things like telecommunications industries from Germany and Scandanavia, the once-rumored (haven't seen any info lately) on the TotalFinaElf "possible acquistion" of portions of some Russian petrochemical interests, and other commercial and business investments that reach farther into the Russian overall economy than do a few billion dollar defense contracts.) As people of the world become more educated, they become less gullible, and I seriously doubt that the current Russian political system is willing to allow itself an its people to be taken in by chicom ideals, regardless of the "we're capitalists now, REALLY!" sugar-coating. Globalization and communist ideologies just don't work together. Certainly, the average Russian citizen wants to rise above the semi-povertous conditions that decades of communism imposed on them in general, and cheap imported chinese goods is one way to do it. But from personal experience in the US economy, cheap chinese goods almost always means
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    RE:Russia AND China; The Two Are Allied? I don't buy it.   6/6/2005 10:58:50 PM
DogTag, If you're so inclined to do so, stop by my website and look at what's presented there. ( http://www.thefinalphase.com ) And, read the latest book on the subject by Dr. Constantine Menges, "China: The Gathering Threat." It speaks of the hidden strategic alliance between Russia and China, albeit not to the extent that TheFinalPhase does, but it is VERY enlightening nonetheless. It was released in March of this year and has a foreward by Bill Gertz. It's at Amazon at here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1595550054/qid=1118112953/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-2462463-8497514?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 (Search the net on the book and you'll find recent reviews of it. I just stopped by here to update the status of my reply. Last week, our forum at EzBoard.com was attacked (which comprises 9,000 individual forums). Most all data was lost (3 years worth of saved posts, etc.). I say this just to let you know that the emergency sideswipped me and pushed me WAY behind on everything else; hence, my reply will be delayed even more. (I did get a new forum up and running through a different service, which is FAR better than the previous one. In case you're interested, it's at: http://thefinalphaseforum.invisionzone.com/index.php? (The Final Phase Forum). I promise I'll be back with some answers, but I may have to mesh it in with a writing I'm behind on, too. Aloha, HB
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    RE:Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied...   6/9/2005 6:21:51 PM
In their chili every day? This is not my reply, but it is an article I just came across while beginning the first steps to a reply. It is important to realize the limitations of "national technical means" of intelligence gathering. First steps to effective national security: realize we are only human, that we have a multitude of vulnerabilities, realize we are susceptible to "not seeing it coming," and realize the complection of the threat is more asymmetrical than conventional. (See Super EMP launched by untracable, undetected sea launch (or Panama launched?).) http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050609-120336-4092r.htm Analysts Missed Chinese Buildup By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new director of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to recognize several key military developments in China in the past decade, The Washington Times has learned. The report was created by several current and former intelligence officials and concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a dozen Chinese military developments, according to officials familiar with the report. The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the failures, but critics say intelligence specialists are to blame for playing down or dismissing evidence of growing Chinese military capabilities. The report comes as the Bush administration appears to have become more critical of China's military buildup. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Singapore over the weekend that China has hidden its defense spending and is expanding its missile forces despite facing no threats. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also expressed worries this week about China's expanding military capabilities. Among the failures highlighted in the study are: •China's development of a new long-range cruise missile. •The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology. •Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the Yuan class that was missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine appeared on the Internet. •Development of precision-guided munitions, including new air-to-ground missiles and new, more accurate warheads. •China's development of surface-to-surface missiles for targeting U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups. •The importation of advanced weaponry, including Russian submarines, warships and fighter-bombers. According to officials familiar with the intelligence report, the word "surprise" is used more than a dozen times to describe U.S. failures to anticipate or discover Chinese arms development. Many of the missed military developments will be contained in the Pentagon's annual report to Congress on the Chinese military, which was due out March 1 but delayed by interagency disputes over its contents. Critics of the study say the report unfairly blames intelligence collectors for not gathering solid information on the Chinese military and for failing to plant agents in the communist government. Instead, these officials said, the report looks like a bid to exonerate analysts within the close-knit fraternity of government China specialists, who for the past 10 years dismissed or played down intelligence showing that Beijing was engaged in a major military buildup. "This report conceals the efforts of dissenting analysts [in the intelligence community] who argued that China was a threat," one official said, adding that covering up the failure of intelligence analysts on China would prevent a major reorganization of the system. A former U.S. official said the report should help expose a "self-selected group" of specialists who fooled the U.S. government on China for 10 years. "This group's desire to have good relations with China has prevented them from highlighting how little they know and suppressing occasional evidence that China views the United States as its main enemy." The report has been sent to Thomas Fingar, a longtime intelligence analyst on China who was recently appointed by John D. Negroponte, the new director of national intelligence, as his office's top intelligence analyst. Mr. Negroponte has ordered a series of top-to-bottom reviews of U.S. intelligence capabilities in the aftermath of the critical report by the presidential commission headed by Judge Laurence Silberman and former Sen. Charles Robb, Virginia Democrat. According to the officials, the study was produced by a team of analysts for the intelligence contractor Centra Technologies. Spokesmen for the CIA and Mr. Negroponte declined to comment. Its main author is Robert Suettinger, a National Security Council staff member for China during the Clinton administration and the U.S. intelligence community's top China analyst until 1998. Mr. Suettinger is traveling outside the country and could not be reached for comment, a spokes
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied...   6/10/2005 11:20:40 AM
HB, because this article is pretty long, I'm going to insert my comments into it, and snip parts that I think can safely be omitted without losing much content. -- DJim ============ In their chili every day? -- HB Yes, we're constantly collecting tons of intel on both of them. -- DJim -------- It is important to realize the limitations of "national technical means" of intelligence gathering. First steps to effective national security: realize we are only human, that we have a multitude of vulnerabilities, realize we are susceptible to "not seeing it coming," and realize the complection of the threat is more asymmetrical than conventional. (See Super EMP launched by untracable, undetected sea launch (or Panama launched?).) -- HB The threat of China and/or Russia of conquering/destroying/bring America low in their Final Phase is asymmetrical? Then when are they actually going to pull the conventional conquering part, and with what? Also, I thought a/the big threat was getting first-strike nuked by them; how is that not "conventional"? "Super EMP by submarine"--ummm, yeah, that sounds neat. Which of the supposed "intelligence failures" and "surprises" mentioned below are the asymmetrical ones? -- DJim -------- Analysts Missed Chinese Buildup By Bill Gertz THE WASHINGTON TIMES A highly classified intelligence report produced for the new director of national intelligence concludes that U.S. spy agencies failed to recognize several key military developments in China in the past decade, The Washington Times has learned. The report was created by several current and former intelligence officials and concludes that U.S. agencies missed more than a dozen Chinese military developments, according to officials familiar with the report. "Failed to recognize"? "Missed... developments"? Oh, really? Then when were they successfully recognized and when were they found--because they're in the report now. Sounds to me like every one of them was recogized and found, although possibly a couple weren't found solely, completely, originally through national technical means but in part or whole first through open source collection. Whatever, nothing's perfect, give intel more resources and we'll deliver even better results--including better use of open source collection of information. -- DJim -------- The report blames excessive secrecy on China's part for the failures, but critics say intelligence specialists are to blame for playing down or dismissing evidence of growing Chinese military capabilities. Once again, I don't know who these downplayers are, but I'd love to see some names named. I'd bet they're silly-assed wonks at CIA or even State or on some politically-appointed panel joined at the hip with the American "Tap the Chinese Market" crowd somehow, because they sure the heck aren't at NSA, NGA, NASIC, MSIC, NGIC, etc. -- DJim -------- The report comes as the Bush administration appears to have become more critical of China's military buildup. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in Singapore over the weekend that China has hidden its defense spending and is expanding its missile forces despite facing no threats. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also expressed worries this week about China's expanding military capabilities. Gee, sounds like maybe the Bush Administration is in China's chili, too. -- DJim -------- Among the failures highlighted in the study are: •China's development of a new long-range cruise missile. Which one is that? I'd guess they might be referring to the missile that we certainly knew about that exhibited a range during a test launch that was somewhere around 120nm instead of the publically released estimated range of 65nm. If that's it, ummm, so what? -- DJim •The deployment of a new warship equipped with a stolen Chinese version of the U.S. Aegis battle management technology. I do believe the jury is far from decided on just how capable that system really is, and I have great difficulty believing we didn't know it was being built with some form of more capable air defense system as it was being built. -- DJim •Deployment of a new attack submarine known as the Yuan class that was missed by U.S. intelligence until photos of the submarine appeared on the Internet. I think what wasn't known about it until revealed in internet photos were some of the specifics of its construction, not its mere existence under construction, but I'll admit I have little knowledge on the specifics of this one. -- DJim •Development of precision-guided munitions, including new air-to-ground missiles and new, more accurate warheads. I confess I know nothing of value about this. -- DJim •China's development of surface-to-surface missiles for targeting U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups. This one certainly smacks of BS. I know we've been very much aware of these developments for several (not just a
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    RE:Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied...   6/15/2005 12:14:33 AM
it is strange though that all during the cold war when the two parties (russia and china) had the most benefit and reason to link up, they did not do so. whether they can do so now is an open question. i'm not sure where they would bring their united force to bear. in the 'stans? perhaps... in the south china sea? probably not. a transfer of technology is the most likely form of cooperation, and that has been going on for a long time. as they say in russian, 'luche imiet sto druzhiej...'
 
Quote    Reply

Jimme    RE:Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied   6/15/2005 1:11:10 AM
I dont think the west has too much to worry about Russia-China allience. Simple reason is that its hard enuff for two western nations to ally themselve to the extent that would be neccesary to make the Rus-Chin allience someting to worry about. Now add the fact that there is no honor amungst thieves so to speak. Both nations arent exactly boyscouts and neither will realy trust each other any farther then they can throw each other. The rightful logic being when one gets the upper hand on the other they will backstab. for instance once China gets the Tech they need from Russia and produce there own weapons will they realy need /want Russia around? Also the power such a union would create and the power of the US are relative. The more of a threat percieved by the allience the more resolve and unity will be created in the US amongst politicians and citizens alike which makes for a very formidable and focused American machine. Add to this the fact that many nations will also feel the tension and seek alliences with US and NATO, even further strengthening the US position. I just dont see much coming from this in the long run or the grand scheme of things. More likely scenerio is they eventualy turn on each other and start a war amongst themselves.
 
Quote    Reply

glenn239    RE:Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied   6/15/2005 1:08:31 PM
Many of the claims being made appear outrageous. I can't see them doing anything but damaging American interests.
 
Quote    Reply

HiloBill    RE:Russia AND China - The Two Are Allied   6/15/2005 2:18:37 PM
You know, this is a difficult subject to try imparting information that will convince others of the threat of Russia and China's strategic alliance. My intention was to write a response to Displaced Jim and Glenn. However, I can not find the adequate time to address their good points as to why it can't be and/or even if it is, how can they...where's their stuff? The good points brought out by Jim and Glenn, plus the other good commentary here will eventually be addressed by me, but not in the very near future. The contrary points to my initial and subsequent posts will be incorporated into a somewhat extensive writing I'll be eventually posting at TheFinalPhase.com. One book that came out recently (Mar 05) is Dr. Constantine Menges's "China: The Gathering Threat." Therein, he lays out distinctly how much of a threat China is today; not a rising threat, but an arisen threat. And, he points out the strategic alliance between Russia and China that too often goes unnoticed by policy wonks and is not sufficiently discussed enough within Intel, Security and Defense circles. (At the bottom here, I'll post a review of the book by Cal Thomas.) Although Menges points out the China threat today and tomorrow and the strategic alliance between Russia and China, he does not view the consequences of such an alliance in the way I have presented. Without understanding - or at least considering - that this alliance has been covertly in existence for decades (even and especially during the time of the supposed Sino-Soviet split) and that it has been purposefully hidden to deceive the West, then a full and complete understanding of the threat can not be realized. The immediately foregoing will not convince anyone of the overall claim. It requires study of the issue. As Glenn rightly points out, such a possibility should AT LEAST be considered as a possibility....otherwise, those responsible for our nation's defense are not fulfilling their fundamental obligations to the American people. Jim's profession makes it very difficult to see how such a thing can be pulled off against the West in the fashion I have suggested in the past. This is completely understandable. The people Jim is surrounded by (and himself) are absolutely dedicated military professionals. They are competent guardians of our national defense in the field of technical intelligence gathering. However, that said, once the notion is accepted as true that an enemy CAN NOT surprise you, that is the time we are most vulnerable. The ultimate threat to America is strategic in nature, which MAY even result in a surprise, all out nuclear attack at some future point and time by Russia and/or China. However, preceding such an event, it would be likely that a, or a series, of asymmetrical attack/diversions might unfold long enough to blind or paralyze our ability to respond before it’s too late. Again, the immediately foregoing will not convince anyone in and of itself - it takes study of the many resources I have pointed out before. The major element missing in our intelligence community concerning analyses I believe disregards, or does not sufficiently consider or address, the use of deception amongst China, Russia and North Korea. Menges’s book shows clearly early on the terrorist links between North Korea, China, Pakistan, Iran and others. I watched a hearing yesterday on C-Span before the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee on the North Korea Six-Party Negotiations. Christopher Hill, Asst. Sec. of State, East Asian & Pacific Affairs, made what I consider to be the most naive assertions and statements which obviously does not account for possible deception on the part of some “partners.” He asserted that all the parties (China, Russia, South Korea, Japan & US) “...are unwaivering in their opposition to North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons...we’re working together with the other parties to bring the North Koreans to understand that it is in their own self-interest to make that decision [de-nuclearize their country]...” Another assertion of Hill’s that seems so representative of the kind of very vulnerable mindsets prevalent amongst decision and policy makers was particularly disturbing as it was such an emphasized and empathic point: “I want to emphasize there’s absolutely no daylight between us on the issue of disarming North Korea. No one is prepared to accept, say, a few nuclear weapons in North Korea’s hands. Everyone agrees that North Korea must be de-nuclearized. And, I would argue, that, although the six-party process has not succeeded in its primary mission, that is, disarming North Korea, it has succeeded in bringing us closer together with these other partners.” This kind of mindset is self-delusional in my view. After the “defeated” enemy abandoned its attack on Troy and retreated, the people were joyful. The enemy had been repelled and peace was restored. Troy proved its impregnable de
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    the US as Troy   6/15/2005 8:59:42 PM
hilobill, i have perused your website and you have, in a way, made me a believer. i didn't realize how perilous the situation with russia was before and you have convinced me that russia is the weimar republic of our day: a tinder box. but to compare the US to Troy... and the Russkis are going to get the drop on them because the whole 'wall has fallen' gig was an elaborate set-up from day one... hmmm... that's where you lose me. your theory is interesting and i agree with some of your premises. but not the conlusions you draw. keep theorizing though, some good stuff there. all the best
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics