48 replies to this topic

[Investor]

Salaam everyone

 

I hope everyone is doing well.

 

I will start this discussion and hope that you all will contribute.

 

In the light of the events of recent years I believe that Pakistan is better off forging a closer alliance with Russia than US or any other western counterpart. Looking at the events in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and Syria especially it is obvious that Russia has the leadership which can stand up to the Zionist agenda.

 

Therefore I say: Ditch the West - Embrace the East

 

What do you say?

[BaburMissile]

I agree that cooperation between China, Russia and Pakistan should increase manifold. There's too much at stake and all three countries share the same concerns. We shouldn't ditch others. We should instead keep pleading our case.

[SLD10]

Brothers, don't forget that zionists have also infiltrered Russia.

 

What we really need is to be strong enough with our own ressources and forces !

[Saqr]

Won't happen.

 

Firstly, China and Russia aren't 'allies'. The two countries have competing interests (especially around Central Asia) and the Chinese won't stick around to accept Russia's belligerence with the West. The Chinese depend on the West (especially US) for trade and investment, and unlike the Europeans, the US has the least to lose from a confrontation with Russia.

 

In other words, it is easier for the US to sanction Russia, and given the pressure China's already facing in the Pacific Ocean by the US and its allies, it can't afford to let the US find another reason to screw China, especially where it really matters (i.e. the economy, monetary flows, trade and investment).

 

The Russians and Chinese are pragmatic, they do business with one another because of the direct material gains, but you'll never find them stick up for one another.

 

As for Pakistan, doubly no way. Unlike Russia and China, Pakistan isn't an independent state in the truest sense of the term. Yes, we have our borders and our flag, but our policies are essentially dictated by foreign powers, particularly the US. When one's leaders are dependent on foreign aid, IMF loans, World Bank loans, White House debt write-offs, etc, you can't expect said leaders to effectively screw over their patrons (i.e. the US).

 

That said, the following could happen. If Pakistan were to free itself from US influence, it may be able to leverage its geo-strategic position to exact concessions from China in the form of robust economic investment, discounted weapons, political support, etc. By being neutral and diluting the US presence in South Central Asia (i.e. Pak-Afghanistan), the Chinese would have a little more room to focus on the Pacific Ocean. However, in order to guarantee Pakistan's capacity to maintain neutrality, the Chinese will have to invest in Pakistan's economic and political (especially military) strength.

 

Similarly the Russians may want to keep Pakistan quiet in Central Asia (knowing that Pakistan's capable of stirring trouble if left unchecked). Similar to China, Pakistan can exact some concessions from Russia in return for guaranteeing Central Asia's stability.

 

We shouldn't be pursuing alliances, they're pointless. We should pursue aggressive foreign policy, tit-for-tat and give-and-take.

[peen1]

The future of oil and gas lies in pipelines. Pipelines do not require US naval protection, are not reliant on pirate infested sea routes, cannot be blockaded and in the long run are cheaper than oil/gas tankers. One of the things which has freed Germany is the Nord Stream pipeline - a direct undersea link between Russia and Germany with enough capacity to supply France, Netherlands and the UK. Germany does not need the US navy for the protection of its economic lifeline.

 

If this deal between India and Russia goes through, it will change the global energy landscape:

 

http://www.globalres...t-china/5378160

 

If Russia gets a direct link with Germany (already exists), China (watch Putin's visit to China next week), Japan (currently being built) and India (planned), it will become the only country to have direct pipeline links with the major economic engines of the world. 

 

The Chinese have built a network of pipelines throughout central Asia and are investing in the Pakistan energy corridor also. Pipelines through Pakistan will be built. If they cannot go to Gwadar, then they will go to Karachi instead - pipeline infrastructure from Karachi to the capital already exists. The question is that who will be the end supplier.

 

Iran would not mind, but it has other options. It can easily connect to the central Asian network of pipelines and supply all the main parties (using the Russian/Chinese links) - something it will prefer since it avoids troubles in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Gulf Arabs have a choice, then can either watch all this from the sides and become irrelevant or they can join in.

 

The only option for the gulf countries to enter this pipeline network is via Pakistan. Nord stream pipeline is aprox 800 miles long. The total distance from the UAE to Gwadar (under sea) is 400 miles. If you go via Oman, the distance becomes only 200 miles. Such a pipeline can be built within 1-2 years.

[HALFILHAL]

Why not stand on your own feet and not look for a lap everytime you open your eyes?

[blueazure]

^^ nations need alliances , nothing wrong in that 

[Felicius]

China and Russia aren't 'allies'. 

 

 

http://rt.com/op-edg...nctions-russia/

 

China ‘opposed to sanctions of any kind’ over Ukraine

 

 

Edited by Felicius, 15 May 2014 - 04:02 PM.

[Saqr]

Felicius,

 

It's been a while since China supported sanctions on anyone, much less one of their main sources of military imports. This a tit-for-tat exchange between countries on stable terms, not an alliance.

[Felicius]

Saqr, supporting a country is being an ally. What is an alliance?

For us an ally can only be the one who either gives us $1.5bils, free aircrafts, or share the same religion and hunts illegally. But that is not the only definition of an ally. Any nation that supports us globally is an ally.

 

Myanmaar has agreed to allow us to refuel in air if we go to war with India - they are an ally. Iran supported us during Kargil while we had sanctions, they are an ally. China said they will not support sanctions on Russia, they are being an ally.

 

By saying that, at a time when Russia is under pressure and US wants to prove a point, China backed Russia and not the US. Hence, they are allies, and do not care about the economic deals they may jeopardize with the West.

Edited by Felicius, 15 May 2014 - 06:16 PM.

[Metanoia]

China and Russia are in the same camp.

Hint: look what goes on in UNSC

[Saqr]

Felicius,

 

Generally speaking, countries don't mess around with one another in the open. This is an important point because we often take gestures of "good will" (i.e. favours) as overtures between so-called allies. We're just seeing countries exchange favours, cement their point-interests and move on.

 

Secondly, it is a standard part of Chinese diplomacy to keep a relatively low head and not engage in isolating or sanctioning other countries, especially big countries, such as Russia. It takes a lot to make China turn against another country in the open, often major wars or issues that are directly impacting its borders. Even then though they're quite pragmatic, e.g. their approach to the Japanese, Taiwanese, Koreans and - above all - the Americans. 

 

The Chinese have a business-like (aka pragmatic) mindset to diplomacy, by giving Russia some room over Crimea and Ukraine, they're banking on the Russians to be more lenient over military technology OR (if the day ever comes) give China room over a territorial dispute of its own.

 

Being transactional doesn't equate to being allies. It's give and take. FYI even Pakistan's relationship with the US is transactional in nature (after all, what country goes around and kills the citizens of its ally in the open?). Allies have a much deeper relationship. Not only do they engage in transactions, but they also invest themselves in very sensitive areas such as pacts (NATO), interoperability (NORAD) and golden parachutes (soft aid, short notice tech transfers, bases, etc). China's relationship with Pakistan borders on an alliance of sorts, at least it did anyways.

 

Metanoia,

 

There's no 'camp' involving China and Russia, they're just trading favours.

Edited by Saqr, 15 May 2014 - 07:08 PM.

[Krad]

I have to agree with Saqr.

 

Allies is too strong a word to describe various quid pro quo that super and ultra power countries like US, Russia and China engage in.

 

You might see a little more between Russia and China in the geopolitical context compared to the other combos because they are still somewhat (percieved or actually - matter of debate) of the underdogs compared to the US.

[Felicius]

You might see a little more between Russia and China in the geopolitical context compared to the other combos because they are still somewhat (percieved or actually - matter of debate) of the underdogs compared to the US.

 

 

Not might, we always do see them "more" - it's a given.

If there is a veto then Russia and China both vetos together on  the same matter. If the US veto's then Russia and China were in agreement while US voted against it.

 

China and US may be economic partners, vendor and buyer relationship within the consumer goods/market, nothing more. While with Russia they have a lot more of a strategic and military alliance. Not once that China has not backed Russia.

Edited by Felicius, 16 May 2014 - 09:07 AM.

[Krad]

China didnt follow Russian veto regarding Ukraine's request to convene an immediate UNSC session for a hearing on the Crimea situation.

 

Neither did they follow the Russian veto on Georgian war similarly before that.

 

China also vetoed a resolution by itself on Macedonia in 1999 which Russia sought to put through with the west.

 

So its not always the case.

 

When we see an official collective security pact between China and Russia of a NATO like structure...tell me then and I will agree.

 

Till then they will have mutual cooperation on many areas where they both stand to gain....but they are not allies....they are too big and influential for that.

[Skull-Buster]

China and Russia stopped being "allies" after the 1960s, known as the period of the Sino-Soviet Split. They also fought a small undeclared war in 1969 over border disputes. Since then they support each other in issues of mutual interest, but they are not allies. 

 

Being allies means that in the hypothetical case that the US and Russia go to war, China will join Russia in fighting the US, which we know will never happen.

[Felicius]

China didnt follow Russian veto regarding Ukraine's request to convene an immediate UNSC session for a hearing on the Crimea situation.

 

 

There were no UN resolution on sanctions at all. The few chosen ones did their own thing, visa restrictions etc.

The only UN resolution on Crimea was for member states to not recognize the change of status.

[Krad]

I never said it was a UN resolution on any sanctions, just one to even allow Ukraine to present its case before the UNSC. Russia Vetoed this one, China abstained (did not veto).

 

Letter in question:

 

http://www.un.org/en...mbol=S/2014/136

 

Resolution that was proposed:

 

http://www.un.org/en...mbol=S/2014/189

 

The meeting:

 

http://www.un.org/en...ymbol=S/PV.7138

 

Looking at the Chinese parts, it is significant they didnt just choose to veto it along with the Russians. Instead they talk of the dangerous "foreign influence" in Ukraine and take a decidedly neutral, uncommital stance....on something that is so close and important to Russia's geopolitics. Same story with the Georgian war.

 

If they were truly allies, would not the Chinese have vetoed both? 

 

At the end of this all, we are engaged in a matter of semantics....we obviously have differing definitions of what constitutes an ally.

[Felicius]

No, one permanent member is enough. Russia vetoed and China did not vote at all.

Going by your argument "If they were truly allies, would not the Chinese have vetoed both" it's the same for any argument - if China and US were allies wouldn't they have voted against Russia.

 

You are reading too much into it.

China clamped down on Uyghyrs  about 3 or 4 years ago and GCC and OIC took out a resolution against China. Pakistan defended China, does that mean we aren't allies with Saudi Arabia (KSA had made the motion)?

 

NATO countries are allies, but when France did not support US in Iraq (French fries became freedom fries), does that mean France and US are no longer allies?

 

Allies does not mean blind following either  it has to not harm oneself while supporting the other. You can't just jump in the lake because your ally says so!

[Krad]

 

 

if China and US were allies wouldn't they have voted against Russia.

---------

I have said it is impossible for any of these 3 countries to be true allies in global peacetime. So I dont get what you are trying to say. 

----------

 

China clamped down on Uyghyrs  about 3 or 4 years ago and GCC and OIC took out a resolution against China. Pakistan defended China, does that mean we aren't allies with Saudi Arabia (KSA had made the motion)?

 

------------

No I would not count the KSA and Pakistan as allies. Close friends, sure....but allies? Look at KSA's relationship with India...they have many eggs in many baskets. Does Saudi Arabia or any gulf country have a collective security pact with Pakistan in an event of a war with India? A squadron of fighters or a brigade of soldiers is just lip service. I'm talking full committal and declaration of war on Pakistan is also a declaration of war on us....here's a major chunk of every soldier and weapon we have for Pakistan to use if needed. THAT is an ally during peacetime. In war time, any country that helps you all out... is an ally. Limited help or enemy of enemy is my friend kind of stuff is co-belligerent only.

 

The triple entente and triple alliance before WW1 is a good example for peacetime alliances before NATO existed (as long as countries honour their commitments unlike Italy). 

---------

 

 

NATO countries are allies, but when France did not support US in Iraq (French fries became freedom fries), does that mean France and US are no longer allies?

-----------

Allies are only obligated to support another allies wars if it is covered by the collective security agreement (of being attacked first). This is why France commited to Afghanistan (in response to 9/11 attacks on American soil)....but said no to Iraq (the US pre-emptive motive to take out WMD was rejected). If France were attacked militarily, the US would be legally bound to assist France's if it was required. If France randomly decided to re-acquire Algeria one day...US is not legally bound and would probably reject it. They would still be allies though, unless one withdraws from NATO completely (France famously withdrew from the command structure of NATO in the 60s and only rejoined some few years back - however France never withdrew completely so the alliance legal parameters were still met even during the cold war).

 

No such security agreement exists between Russia and China in the first place in any capacity. Like skullbuster said, China would not have to legally jump in to support a Russian (defensive) war against US....and neither would Russia have to do it for China. Therefore one cannot call them allies. They are not legally mandated. And one can only strictly go by such legal commitments in peacetime....because wartime projections are purely hypothetical. Maybe they will end up helping each other in such a war, and then the word ally can be used from that point onwards till the war's completion. But at this point in time, there is no legal framework between them that constitutes an alliance.

 

When such a security agreement is signed and they are legally bound to help the other in all cases of another country.organisation attacking first.... we can call them allies. When we see shared military facilities in both countries and army bases of one located in the other and vice-versa...then yes....we can call them allies.

 

When their support is limited to diplomatic support in the U.N and they have growing economic ties....they are not allies yet.

 

To me an ally has to be willing to shed its own blood in a big way for you if you are ever attacked first (thats the minimum - the maximum definition is an ally that will offer formal peacetime support for ANY future military action you do whether reactionary or not...and this is generally very rare in history).

 

This is why it would be next to impossible to see any alliance between China and Russia. They are too big. They know they are often on the same page today, but will they be so tomorrow?...because they certainly have not always been yesterday (the great USSR - China animosity that skull buster mentioned).

 

Countries that share common objectives geopolitically for whatever reason and gain mutual benefit from cooperating as such diplomatically economically etc.... but stop short of signing some sort of overt blood pact...some call them allies, some dont. I dont. Like I said, our definitions are different....lets move on. 

------

 

 

Allies does not mean blind following either  it has to not harm oneself while supporting the other. You can't just jump in the lake because your ally says so!

--------

I dont agree fully. Allies have to be ready to get harmed to support the other if the appropriate legal parameters of the alliance are met (e.g an attack from a foreign source/enemy). This is why NATO countries can be counted as allies in my book....but China and Russia cannot. But you are right that an alliance does not have to cover every single type of war action a member country can engage in. I think back to the Napoleonic wars and the Crusades for that kind of zealotry.

[Metanoia]

Allies can be of different types due to the varying levels of intensity in a given relationship. 

For instance, Sino-Russian relationship cannot be compared to the US-Israeli relationship, but that doesn't mean Sino-Russian alliance doesn't exist.

[Felicius]

 So I dont get what you are trying to say. 

 

 

 

It's simple actually, I am not trying I have said it quite clearly - if you read the conversation between Saqr and myself; that was the crux of the conversation.

I'll ask the same question to you, what is an alliance? Does it have to be only during war? Does it have to have a written agreement?

 

NATO is more war centric than anything else, true. But that is not the only example is it? EU isn't war focused, rather economic centric. Same as in GCC. Today KSA is angry with Qatar does not mean they aren't allies in terms of OIC. Then there is NAFTA too. Pakistan is accused of flying Sri Lankan jets to bomb Tamil Tigers that we didn't refute as such, just waited for the topic to get "pass away", yet we don't have any agreement with them. Point being you can, in realistic terms, only have a progressive or an economic treaty with one that you trust and are your allies. I don't see India and Pakistan or India and Bangladesh ever have such a treaty.

 

By the way, KSA and Pakistan does have a war agreement, we just don't say it our aloud. It's not their lip service, rather our nuclear umbrella that is in play.

 

You are reading too much into it. Krad policies evolve all the time, even though the amendments may come after few years. Here in Canada, I amended the policy after 3 years of the procedure had changed; Just because the written document said one thing does not mean that is how things were being done.

 

Biggest example is we have something written with the OIC but we went ahead and did this - http://forum.pakista...showtopic=84946

 

However, I do not see Russia and Pakistan ever being allies, that is wishful thinking here by members. Pakistanis have a habit of forgetting and pretending it is not a big deal, but it was us that made it possible for their Ruble to crash and incur a loss of 25000 dead - we may not see it does not mean they will ever forget it.

 

ISI killed Karzai's father yet Pakistanis were questioning why is Karzai against Pakistan.

 

Here they talk about alliance and in another thread they want China to be answerable for the Uyghyrs issue. Reality is no one wants to be our ally, we are lucky they have tolerated us (the people) for that long.

[Krad]

Like I said buddy, we just have two differing interpretation on what an alliance/ally constitutes.

 

Case in point: The US designated Pakistan as a "major non NATO ally" and promptly directed drone attacks overtly on your sovereign soil (the fact Pakistan military let this happen is another issue)...not to mention the various other anti-Pakistan activities they have engaged and continue to engage in. So to me the word "ally" is thrown around with reckless abandon. Some use it wherever friend can be used. Some even apparently use it sarcastically like the US to score brownie points.

 

I however make a clear distinction as to what an ally is.

 

I guess I am old school in my definition, having studied history in depth, I know of too many instances where two countries or entities have mutual cooperation in various fields....but when sh1t hits the fan....one is left high and dry because the other one doesnt want to get its hands dirty. Heck Italy in WW1 said screw it, we are going to actually fight against the "alliance" we joined.

 

To me the true watermark of a genuine ally is will the ally give unstinting support to you in a war. I just dont see this happening between Russia and China. 1. Few countries will actually take either one on...and 2. the few that can....well I just dont see the other one pitching in and making itself a target as well given the nature of the countries we are talking about in this league.

 

I make a clear distinction between "friend" and "ally". Friend is someone that will break bread with you (where words like companion and company come from - literally breaking bread (panis/pain) in latin/french) . Ally is someone that will spill blood for you....its really that simple for me. Sure you can expand the terminology of what an ally can be....it is your right and opinion.....and no one is going to say its right or wrong. The word ally itself comes from latin "ad + ligare = alligare" - to bind together...so what level of binding together is a matter of opinion.

 

If you really want to be technical, we can define the context. It can be argued that Russia and China are economic allies, even geopolitical allies a lot of the time. But they are not military allies - this to me is the litmus test of an ally...it may not be the litmus test for everyone else. Its just a matter of semantics, so I consider this discussion closed.

 

Under the bonhomie, the Chinese and Russians still harbour a deep suspicion and mistrust of each other. This is only natural and inevitable given their history, given their transitions they are undergoing and given their sizes. The military elites of each would have experienced their more junior days during the cold war ( lets say most if not all ranks today from colonel and upwards). They are not going to forget overnight the bitter, almost existential tension the USSR and PRC had.

 

But thanks for your elaboration, I see and understand your point of view...I hope you understand mine.

 

Using my definition of "ally" for Pakistan....Pakistan is not a glaring exception in the world....most countries have few or zero allies (except NATO of course). 

 

But using your definition of ally, it is indeed sad that Pakistan has few genuine friends. China I can name, at least Pakistan has that....and I am sure that friendship will last. As for the OIC, I would not trust them. They to me are the kind of "friends" you keep up appearances for some reason or another....but its not genuine. The way Pakistani labourers are treated in those countries (even though they are fellow muslims) plus the equality and parity the oil sheikhs treat non-Muslim India (because of greed) should be evidence enough of that. They are a lost cause....maybe Iran is one you can reach out to if the Shia - Sunni thing can be buried. Iran actually has a good technological and scientific pool and they need all the friends they can get....time to forget about the bad blood and make a Iran - Pakistan - China alliance.....but alas this is also a dream because religion always gets dragged in.

 

It puzzles me that Pakistan and Iran can be friends with atheistic/buddhist China but not with each other. Its almost like having a family (OIC - sunni or shia) that you just cant stand and would rather be with the reasonable friends (China) you made outside of the family....because the family is the same religion as you and the rich members preach to you and treat you like dirt....whereas the non-religious friend treats you as an equal...yet you still have to pander to the rich family members sometimes for your daily bread.

 

If Pakistan develops itself first and stops worrying about religion and all the other divisions....if Pakistan can open up its eyes and reform itself and grow....you will find many people will come and become your friends....and not just one who needs you to deal with a mutual threat.

[Saqr]

Krad,

 

Well said. The one thing Pakistan needs - above all else - is to achieve genuine independence. Pakistan cannot afford having governments and military leaders submit themselves to foreign influences for the sake of aid. This needs to stop, now.

 

A genuinely independent Pakistan would take notice of America's behaviour in the region (e.g. drone strikes, Raymond Davis, etc) and categorically cease its support of the US. This is an "ally" that killed your citizens, have some dignity and hold Washington accountable for its actions and policies. Shut the supply routes and put a throttle on all US activities in Pakistan, i.e. resize America's diplomatic and personnel footprint in Pakistan, restrict their movements, etc. Drive the lesson home, murder or - at best - extra-judicial killings won't be tolerated.

 

Unfortunately, this kind of political and military leadership doesn't exist in Pakistan, or rather, it hasn't been built.

 

For some reason our people and institutions are more than willing to continue tolerating literal sellouts such as Nawaz, Zardari and coup generals unable to live up to their ideals than to demand results.

 

Moreover, we're unwilling to remove those who are unable or unwilling to do what's right. This is a country of over 160 million people with nuclear weapons, not a board game, we need to define the rules based on our realities and on the values of our people.

Edited by Saqr, 17 May 2014 - 09:45 PM.

[Krad]

Yes, there is a genuine nationhood/nationalism vacuum in Pakistan. That is my only conclusion from my observations over the last couple decades. It has been allowed to fester and now it is a full-blown disease that has taken hold of large swathes of Pakistan's society.

 

Only when an existential threat is called into play (India), the correct attitude emerges in Pakistan as far as unity is concerned.

 

But every other level of threat is somehow treated with a casual attitude and/or pointing fingers.

 

This is why India did not have the same response in 2008 after the Mumbai attacks as they did in 2002 when they were poised to have an all out war and probably get destroyed in the process (but finally backed down thankfully)

 

They know Pakistan does not have the national "toughness" when it comes to your day to day internal threats....because of the divisions in society....and the many players that are exploiting this like the US, Iran, KSA....on top of India. Why does one have to put one's own existence at risk when you can cut your enemy down in much simpler ways from the inside?

 

Pakistan needs to understand on a deep level (like Rocky would have said) its not how hard you can hit, its how hard you can GET hit and keep pushing forward. If you allow yourself to get hit and not respond, be it drone attacks, influence from otuside sources in religious schools that are not conducive to a nationalistic goal, or casual treatment of wretched separatist/overthrow organisations like the BLO, MQM and Taliban at varying degrees....then you can forget about having a collection of good friends outside of the country.

 

Pakistan has to respect itself first before it can ask for respect and genuine friendship from others. Right now it is severely lopsided, there is a big red button to handle the Indian existential threat....but no adequate foundations for everything below that. I hope the people of Pakistan rise up one day to deal with that. Fix Pakistan before you try to fix the muslim world...if you don't....you will always remain a pawn and a punching bag....nukes or no nukes.

[Krad]

And for those that say, lets depend on China to deal with India/US/Iran/Israel/whoever at the foreign geopolitical level.

 

I say this. China always puts itself first and foremost. It didnt come to Pakistan's aid in 1971 when Pakistan was, quite frankly, dismembered (and this happened again because of internal disunity as to the nature of what the idea of Pakistan was - India's military and positioning was just the straw that broke the camel's back). If it didn't back then under the stewardship of the capricious but calculating Mao (and when it had far less to lose)....it definitely will not now under the newer leadership of pragmatic and stable technocrats with a near 10 trillion dollar economy and dozens...maybe hundreds of trillions of dollars stockpiled in wealth.

 

China is going to treat India as a major power for the foreseeable future. It is in China's best interests to do so. There is a limit to how much they will help Pakistan. They will give you the military goodies, the economic support to a point and try to support you diplomatically as much as they can.

 

But they will not shed major blood for Pakistan. I can guarantee you that. They are too smart and have too much at stake. So asking or expecting them to put their neck on the chopping block as well is a fool's errand. They are also not goign to get their hands dirty for each and every thing that Pakistan itself really ought to be dealing with (things that are bleeding Pakistan today - I am sure you know of them).

 

If Pakistan wants internal peace and development, it can only come from within. Do not be looking to China as a magic wand. That will only bring further disappointment and even ruin and destruction in the long run.

[Felicius]

If Russia and Chinese are not allies, then who or what persuaded the Russians to give us the RD-93s? We have received 100 RDs over the 50 agreed. It wasn't Russia with love, and Russia wouldn't care about Pakistan.

 

You are correct about China, they have gradually accepted India; both people and government. Times have changed. However, China is not about to give up Pakistan for India; that won't happen. In another 10 odd years their patience too will wear out, they may step back but not to the point of giving preference to India over Pakistan.

 

Religion as a means of an alliance is a bad decision.

Edited by Felicius, 18 May 2014 - 09:47 AM.

[Krad]

 

 

If Russia and Chinese are not allies, then who or what persuaded the Russians to give us the RD-93s? We have received 100 RDs over the 50 agreed. It wasn't Russia with love, and Russia wouldn't care about Pakistan.

--------------------

 

Just like China has a limit with Pakistan....Russia has a limit with India (esp as India grows and moves away from client state nature of the cold war). Why stop at the aircraft engines. Russia has provided Pakistan with a number of goodies in return for cold hard cash....helicopters, various weaponry, transport aircraft you name it.

 

This has little to do with Russia and China being "allies"....and more to do with Russia out to make a quick buck without upsetting India too much (and balancing the nature of their relationship much like India has done with the West and Israel etc.)

 

I dont count Russia and China as "allies" just like I dont see Russia and India as "allies". The 3 countries interests are like a Venn diagram....and the amount of overlap reflects their respective cooperation.

 

 

 

 

 

 However, China is not about to give up Pakistan for India; that won't happen. In another 10 odd years their patience too will wear out, they may step back but not to the point of giving preference to India over Pakistan.

--------

Agreed. China will provide the help within reason...and hope for the best. But the solid development has to come internally from Pakistan. 160 -180 million people cannot be a simple client state of anyone in this day and age. Pakistan should stop acting like one.

 

 

 

 

 

Religion as a means of an alliance is a bad decision.

------------------

 

Agreed. Case in point: West and East Pakistan. If religion is the only thing holding a country together, its not going to work out in the long run. Pakistan was formed in the name of religion....but this religion also provides political and social cues.....but for some reason Pakistan has not been able to translate that effectively....all the while looking to expand on its divisions and playing the blame game and having a conspiracy attitude. It got dismembered in 1971....India, Bengalis and Hindus were blamed....other glaring reasons were ignored. Being this simplistic and absolving any blame on people's human nature within framework of a religion is short sighted and stupid. People are always going to interpret and distort the word of religion, so you HAVE to find other reasons for nationhood...be it economy, society, history, wealth and progress etc. 

 

Is China a muslim country? No. So if Pakistan is able to be such good friends with China....why cannot the pure religion based hatred/rivalry be overlooked within Pakistan for a greater good? Is this not what Jinnah wanted? A Muslim to stop being muslim and Hindu to stop being a Hindu (in political sense)...and all being Pakistani? If this was not a nationalistic goal, then I dont know what is. He just wanted to get away from what he saw was a completely Brahmin dominated political class of India....and to have a genuine country where all citizens are equal.

 

Pakistan is in the habit of making bogeymen, complaining and pointing fingers. Time to take the bull by the horns, take responsibility and rise above the pettiness. You not only need a strong leader, but also a society that is willing to make sacrifices and look beyond their own nose and what their local mullah is shouting at them. I would even go so far to say, for about 10 - 20 years (preferably forever) Pakistan has to forget about being a sunni-muslim country and leave religion to be the personal choice of its citizens....and move forward on nationalistic goals. The religious angle is giving too much scope for all kinds of activities that are dividing its people, brother against brother....and this will lead to complete destruction in the long run....even if there is a "country" sitting with one seat in the UN (if that). 

 

With the kinds of leaders Pakistan has had so far in recent times and the sheer impotence of society to see the nature of these leaders and politicians...it is frankly disturbing to think of where Pakistan is headed. I mean come on, you telling me this is the best Pakistan has got?

 

So yes if religion is not working to hold Pakistan together, it should not be the defining reason to have an alliance or make friends....as Pakistan's experience with China is hopefully proving.

 

You have to give no special preference to any country if they are muslim and no hidden suspicion if they are not. Let the actions prove that.

[Dizasta]

Salaam everyone

 

I hope everyone is doing well.

 

I will start this discussion and hope that you all will contribute.

 

In the light of the events of recent years I believe that Pakistan is better off forging a closer alliance with Russia than US or any other western counterpart. Looking at the events in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and Syria especially it is obvious that Russia has the leadership which can stand up to the Zionist agenda.

 

Therefore I say: Ditch the West - Embrace the East

 

What do you say?

 

=============================================================

 

First of all, Wa'laikum Assalaam Wa'rahmatullah-e-Wa'baraqaatuhu!

 

When it comes to Pakistan, yes ..... the country will experience a tremendous change to itself, economically, socially and politically (foreign relations). If it were to expand on closer ties with Russia and China. 

 

Russia and China, ought to be natural allies. If they don't already recognize that, then they are living in a fools paradise. As they would learn, to their own misfortune, how one day, the Zionist-West would manipulate and plot to have China and Russia go to war with each other. That has been the way these conniving, inbred-$wines (Zionists), have done so in the past. The list of examples is endless and anyone who is oblivious to the evidence in history, on how these zionist-p!g$ have contrived wars between countries, or invaded them based on lies and deception. Then those people are either ignorant, blind and/or living in disneyland. 

 

But, on surface, it seems as though both Russia and China know that they only have each other and no one else. Because, if they have looked around the world, they would have recognized and identified that there are no more countries left in the world. Who are independent, strong and opposed to the Zionist-West's hegemony. Be it Brazil, Vietnam, India, Argentina or Malaysia. All are either in the process of being corrupted, coerced or destroyed economically. Or they have been blinded by the disputes, highlighted by the Zionist-West, with Russia or China. Which are either direct or indirect disputes. And those countries who are independent, like Venezuela and Cuba, are in the process of being infiltrated for them to be run by puppets installed by the Zionist-West. 

 

Russia and China need to establish a deep-rooted alliance, which would see incorporation of fail-safe mechanism, that would act as an anti-body to eliminate any infiltration from the Zionist-West. In Russia, this visibly evident, as Russian President - Vladimir Putin, has managed to develop such a system of governance that would ensure mobilization of elements within the system, to eliminate, sterilize any zionist agenda from materializing. This is why, the Zionist-West (America, Britain & France) view the Russian Federation as a major threat to it's globalization, one-world government agenda. The Zionist-West is also scared $hitle$$ to get into a close-quarter fight with the Russians. As they are certain, that the Russia Bear will brutally maul them, even in a conventional war. But more importantly, because the Russian Federation has the capability to launch an endless barrage of nuclear weapons that would see the Zionist-West's plans turn to ash, in a split second.

 

For Pakistan, there is a lot of work in front of them, if they are to pivot toward the Sino-Russian alliance. For starters, Pakistan's leadership would need to be changed both physically and ideologically. Physically, the political system needs to be infiltrated by a nucleus of Patriots, that would establish a system of rule, that is immune to Zionist-West's deception, lies, infiltration and attacks. This can achieved by exploiting the chinks in the Zionist-controlled news-networks operating within Pakistan today. Controlling the news-networks, would enable Pakistan-Patriots to expose the corrupt, weak, inept ruling elite of Pakistan in a way that has never been witness by the people of Pakistan, ever in their entire history. Also, the Patriots control of the news-networks, would be used to unite the Pakistani people, by cleansing the system first of any foreign influence, foreign media, foreign relations, on a domestic level. 

 

Another thing that Pakistan needs to work on, is it's relationship with it's neighbors. And on the top of the list, is Afghanistan. Where Pakistan needs to devote attention toward securing it's borders with the country, first. And then, build a limited, but vigilantly monitored trade that benefits the Afghan economy in the long run. This would alleviate any uncertainty by our neighbor, of their access to the Arabian Sea for trade and economic growth. Having secured its borders, Pakistan would be able to manage and control the traffic to and from Afghanistan, in a fair and just manner. No amount of political bargaining, supporting opposing parties with Afghanistan would sway the Afghan psyche in favor of Pakistan, than the one already mentioned by me. A secured, rationale and mutually beneficial relationship with Afghanistan, paves the way for Russia and China to invest in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

 

So, my friend, as you can see for yourself. It is not an easy task for Pakistan to form a strong and deep-rooted alliance with Russia & China. But, it is not impossible a task, either. 

[Felicius]

Krad, with the Rd-93s, it was completely different.

First Russia flatly said no. Then it was for only 50. Then we could sell the jets too. Finally, there is no limit it seems - All that was made possible by China.

 

With the other goodies it was different. They told us what they are willing to sell to us (that won't undermine India), and we knew what was available to us. With the JF-17, we were banking on WS-13. But when that didn't happen it was a setback. RD-93 was the alternative and Russia wouldn't have budged if it were not for China.

Edited by Felicius, 18 May 2014 - 08:33 PM.

[Krad]

OK point taken.

 

Still doesnt change my view of what an ally is. It is good to see China using its leverage with Russia to help Pakistan.....but I still only see it as a leverage....not an alliance.

 

I mean a full blown alliance would mean that Russia would completely abandon India....and support only China..... and Russian troops would be in Tibet and Chinese troops would be on the border with Europe....or there is a collective signed defensive treaty at the very least.

 

Till then its just leverage for me.

[Felicius]

I mean a full blown alliance would mean that Russia would completely abandon India....and support only China..... and Russian troops would be in Tibet and Chinese troops would be on the border with Europe....or there is a collective signed defensive treaty at the very least.

 

 

Along those same lines I had asked you what your thoughts were, if France and US are still allies, because France refused to jump in the WMD WOT on Iraq, and you thought that they are still allies if they are attacked first. But with Russia and China you think it should be otherwise?

 

 

This is why France commited to Afghanistan (in response to 9/11 attacks on American soil)....

 

 

But then again, US was not attacked first.

On the contrary US attacked Afghanistan first with 75 Tomahawks on August 20, 1998. 9/11 was retaliation by Afghanistan.

Under that same treaty France was not obligated to jump into it.

 

 

I still only see it as a leverage....not an alliance.

 

 

So if it's not in military terms then it's not an alliance?

 

Anyways - http://rt.com/news/1...isit-interview/

Edited by Felicius, 19 May 2014 - 10:19 AM.

[Krad]

 

 

Along those same lines I had asked you what your thoughts were, if France and US are still allies, because France refused to jump in the WMD WOT on Iraq, and you thought that they are still allies if they are attacked first. But with Russia and China you think it should be otherwise?

----

 

Yes it will be otherwise. If there is a full blown out war between NATO and Russia, you really think China is going to step in and make itself a target? ...or sit back and watch the fun?

 

 

But then again, US was not attacked first.

On the contrary US attacked Afghanistan first with 75 Tomahawks on August 20, 1998. 9/11 was retaliation by Afghanistan.

Under that same treaty France was not obligated to jump into it.

----------

It matters little who started it technically. If you want to be really strict about it, you can say Al -Qaeda/Afghanistan started it before the tomahawk retaliation by bombing the US embassies in East Africa, exploding the PAL airline and 1993 WTC bombings before that. US obviously didnt out of the blue decide to launch tomahawks into Afghanistan for no reason.

 

Plus the whole "who started it" debate matters little. NATO command agreed the US homeland was attacked on 9/11 and France as a member of NATO was obliged to provide assistance as required. France is an ally of the US just like other NATO members, Case closed. 

 

 

 

So if it's not in military terms then it's not an alliance?

--------------

For me and some others on this board, no. For you and some others, it is. Our definitions are different, lets move on.

[Felicius]

you really think China is going to step in and make itself a target? ...or sit back and watch the fun?

 

 

China will have fun by joining in.

NATO has never ever stopped at strikes, they invade and affect the neighbours as well - they are bad news. China will intervene and secure her interests, definitely; by not stepping in China will weaken her position.

[Metanoia]

Case in point is the Korean War 1950.

 

 

 

China will have fun by joining in.

NATO has never ever stopped at strikes, they invade and affect the neighbours as well - they are bad news. China will intervene and secure her interests, definitely; by not stepping in China will weaken her position.

[Krad]

NATO and Russia have nukes. China is not going to step in and make itself a target. If there is no MAD it might be another story. China knows Russia is perfectly able to handle NATO by itself....Russia has plenty of nukes and large pools of conventional hardware.The days of China being willing to sacrifice millions of its citizens for the communist cause (under Mao) are long over....they arent going to risk any kind of unrequired intervention on their part given Russia has nukes and NATO has nukes.

 

Simply put NATO Russia and China are never going to fight each other all out unless one is ready to get fully and thoroughly destroyed in the process....they all had their chances in the cold war....it came to naught. Now is the era of proxy wars and proxy cooperation and little nibbles here and there. If any of them want only a limited war with another, then this will also be very difficult to accomplish given the nature of where does the point of no return exist (India/Pakistan should be familiar with this).

 

China will stick to picking on countries a fraction of its size (and avoid conflicts with even them where possible), and continue verbal sparring with the larger ones like Japan (and also avoid all out war with them)....and engage the major powers with equal merit/mutual benefit and covert sabotage and proxy sparring where necessary.

 

China is not going to have an all out war with anyone the size of Russia or US....or step in if either is fighting the other.

 

Its a purely hypothetical situation to begin with....with next to no chance of happening....so there is no way to know for sure. A lot depends on the context. But there are lots of colonels/captains and generals/admirals sitting in high positions in the chinese military now that were lieutenants when the USSR had its nukes pointed at China just as much as they had them pointed at the west. That bitter memory and deep distrust is not going to go away so quickly....no matter how much temporary cooperation and bonhomie the political elites engage in.

 

Russia also has always been wary of Chinese think-tanks dreaming of taking control of Eastern Siberia for more land and resources one day....not to mention the traditional fears everyone has regarding a country the size of China when you are also a big power.

 

Plus China knows the future is in flux. They will cooperate with Russia as long as it also benefits them. They will not however engage in any massive war unless the Chinese homeland is directly threatened. So if its a local border war the Russians have with someone else, China aint gonna get involved....they might not even support it given the specific context.

 

When China doesnt want to deal with even Vietnam conventionally after the Vietnamese have been beating up their workers and destroying their factories....when they wont risk a conflict for fear of the consequences for even that....what makes you think they will step in guns blazing to help Russia?

[Krad]

 

 

Case in point is the Korean War 1950.

----------

 

That was a clear disrespect of Chinese messages to the allies not to apporach the Yalu river. Plus Mao was batsh1t crazy to get it on somehow and redeem Chinas image after their ###### poor performance in WW2....even if it meant sacrificing millions of soliders and multiple millions of civilians should the war turn nuclear (which he actually wanted so badly at that time - some people just want to see the world burn).

 

Plus old Joe promised him all kinds of goodies which China was not in a position to say no to.

 

The China today is a very different China from then. Firstly no country is going to disrespect a chinese communication like the one with the Yalu river in korea today. If the US/Japan and the South koreans decide enough is enough and the kim jong il dynasty is going down (and they have enough high level tech to intercept his doomsday weapons he lobs at them)....they will definitely need to get China on board first...at least covertly.

 

These kinds of channels didnt even exist in the 50s....heck even the USSR to US hotline was a crappy telegraph wire that barely worked till a better one was installed in the 60s after they almost nuked each other over Cuba.

 

The fact China will secure her interests is never in doubt. But what will require that securing to be in the form of a war...that too started by a third party source....is really open to debate because the situation has changed a lot since Mao and the 50s.

 

China is not going to fight anyone big any time soon ( or even much later)...when they are being so careful to avoid wars with small guys. 

[Nammer]

Pakistan should re-evaluate its ties for better with USA and more strengthen its ties with china and Iran because BJP will make sure that Russia is kept away from such a friendship with Pakistan.

[Felicius]

Krad, maybe if it were US and Russia head to head, China will step back. If NATO countries collectively, then China won't even think twice if Russia asks for help. Depending on the time/period, China may only jump if asked to, unless they feel absolutely necessary.

 

However, the policies shift with the leaders too. With US, Bill Clinton didn't start any wars, Bush wanted only encouragement, was set from the beginning. Yeltsin gave warning but didn't do anything; if Putin was the president then perhaps he would have assisted Iraq.

 

With sanctions on us and our Canberra delivery stopped, Chairman Mao didn't give a hoot for US sanction and bombers and jets flew right in the midst of an all out war. At the end of the day it's also the leaders that makes it or not make it happen.

 

As for Pakistan, we jump into all wars for all our allies, be it Kuwait (Iraq), Bahrain, or Afghanistan; none reciprocate militarily.

Edited by Felicius, 19 May 2014 - 10:22 PM.

[Krad]

Agreed for the most part ^^. Lot for sure depends on leaders and context...and how one side interprets the context (which again comes down on the leadership).

 

Pakistan must stop the unilateral show of alliance. Got to develop some diplomatic brains to use along with the brawn....brawn can always be taken away from you if you are not careful.....as can freedom. Brain always stays with you and you can pass it on....just like the priest did to the Count of Monte Cristo. Pakistan is well served in remembering this.